Summary 2006 WY 160

Summary of Decision issued December 28, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Rader v. Sugarland Enterprises, Inc.

Citation: 2006 WY 160

Docket Number: 06-20

Appeal from the District Court of Sheridan County, the Honorable John C. Brackley, Judge

Representing Appellant (Plaintiff): J. Douglas McCalla and Tyson E. Logan of The Spence Law Firm, LLC, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Logan.

Representing Appellee (Defendant): Timothy W. Miller of Casper, Wyoming.

Issue: The parties agree that the controlling issue on appeal is whether Sugarland owed a legal duty to Rader under the specific factual circumstances of this case.

Holding: Rader, a bar patron, filed a complaint for negligence against Sugarland, a bar owner, to recover for damages sustained in a fight with other bar patrons. Rader appealed the district court’s entry of summary judgment which found that under the undisputed facts of the case, Sugarland owed no duty of care to Rader.
Standard of Review: Summary judgment is appropriate only when the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court reviews the entire record, de novo, in a light most favorable to the party who opposes the motion.
The Court’s focus was whether Sugarland owed or breached any duty to Rader. The Court discussed the facts and holding of Fisher v. Robbins. In Fisher, the Court found that the plaintiff’s evidence did not prove that the original argument caused or inspired the violence which injured the plaintiff or that the bar owner had any opportunity to protect the plaintiff. The Court went on to hold that a mere battle of words, no matter how violent, unaccompanied by action that gives warning that violence is impending, is not enough to create a duty on the part of the bar owner. In Mayflower Restaurant Co. v. Griego, the Court reiterated that a battle of words does not predict that a participant will resort to an unlawful assault and battery. The Court addressed the issue in White v. HA, Inc. where the plaintiff was a patron in the defendant’s bar. The Court held that without sufficient notice of impending danger, no duty arose to protect the plaintiff. In Hanna v. Cloud, the Court synthesized their previous rulings into a three-pronged burden of proof in order for a plaintiff to establish liability against a bar owner:

• A disturbance which did attract or should have attracted the tavern keeper’s attention;
• The lapse of a reasonable amount of time between the attracting disturbance and the subsequent tortious act on the injured invitee by the other invitee, within which time period the tavern keeper had the opportunity to avert the impending danger or subsequent tortious act; and
• A relationship between the attracting disturbance and the subsequent tortious act.

The Court concluded the plaintiff’s evidence in the instant case failed on each of the three parts of the Hanna test. The Court could not find a breach of duty where, as here, there was an unprovoked assault by two men who played no part in the initial disturbance and exhibited no hostility toward Rader prior to the attack.

Affirmed.

D.J. Brooks delivered the decision.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/y72gaw .