Our client was at a popular bar in the Boston area with a group of friends. One of the friends went to the bathroom, leaving his girlfriend alone, whereupon a patron approached the girlfriend and began to harass her. Our client informed the patron that the young woman was there with her boyfriend. The patron immediately went to the bouncers to complain about our client, claiming he had made harassing comments. Our client, seeing that the bouncers had turned their attention on him, approached them and tried to explain what had happened. The patron was growing visibly angrier and said he wanted to fight. Our client said he had no interest in fighting, that he simply wanted to straighten things out. The situation escalated and the bouncers told our client and the patron that they should “take it outside.” Despite our client’s repeated entreaties that he did not want to fight, the bouncers threw both men outside, where our client was badly beaten and had his lower lip bitten off. His attacker fled. Our client was left disfigured, traumatized and facing mounting bills for plastic surgery.

The owners of the bar refused to settle. Their defense was that they had no responsibility for anything that happened on the public sidewalk outside the bar and our client was a brawler. At trial, however, we successfully argued that the bar had a duty to protect their customers. Under direct examination the bouncers each had a different story, and one of them admitted that he had held the door closed while our client was outside screaming for help as he was being beaten. The jury found for our client.

Our client, a man in his forties, was at a crowded blues club with his wife when he was suddenly struck by a flying beer bottle. We successfully sued the venue for negligent security. There had been a single bouncer at the entrance of the venue to take cover fees but nobody on the floor, which was crowded with people drinking. The courts have decided that when one invites people onto one’s premises there is a duty to protect them from the foreseeable acts of a third person. Put simply, if owners should forsee someone on their premises might get violent, they have to protect the other patrons. A defense may argue, as in this case, that even if there is adequate security there might be no time to stop an attack, but that ignores the deterrent effect of having a uniformed security presence in the area, which was not the case here. The case settled favorably without going to court for a trial.