Stachniewicz v. Mar-Cam Corp case brief summary
F: P (Stach), a patron of a drinking establishment was injured in a fight.
A group of Native Americans sitting in an adjacent booth became disruptive when P guests refused to allow a friend’s wife to
dance with them.
The bartender warned P not to start any trouble with them.
The Native American’s pushed down a member of the P’s party and the fight began.
P was found lying just outside.
He suffered amnesia and could remember nothing. The n.a. had been drinking in the bar for 2.5 hours before the fight.
Jury returned a verdict for D. P appealed.
P’s Argument: P was injured in a bar, by customers who were drunk.
D’s Argument: The standard of care is the reasonable care that a bartender similarly situated would exercise.
The P was injured outside the bar.
Serve alcohol, permit loud, boisterous conduct, it led to fight, caused to damages to P
I: Whether violations of statute constitute negligence as a matter of law.
R: Yes
A violation of a statute constitutes negligence as a matter of law when the violation results in an injury to i) a member of a class of persons intended to be protected, and ii) when the harm is the kind which the statute was enacted to prevent.
A: The Act concerns matters having a direct relation to the creation of physical disturbances in bars which would create a
likelihood of injury to customers.
The act seeks to prevent abusive conduct and drunken clientele which results in serious injuries to customers.
The bar owner’s breach of duty to protect his patrons from harm resulting from a drunken brawl is negligence.
Pl was within a class intended to be protected, and the harm caused was the kind the statute intended to prevent.
C: Reversed and remanded for trial.
Co: 3 full test; is this the statute that can be established as per se negligence?
F: P (Stach), a patron of a drinking establishment was injured in a fight.
A group of Native Americans sitting in an adjacent booth became disruptive when P guests refused to allow a friend’s wife to
dance with them.
The bartender warned P not to start any trouble with them.
The Native American’s pushed down a member of the P’s party and the fight began.
P was found lying just outside.
He suffered amnesia and could remember nothing. The n.a. had been drinking in the bar for 2.5 hours before the fight.
Jury returned a verdict for D. P appealed.
P’s Argument: P was injured in a bar, by customers who were drunk.
D’s Argument: The standard of care is the reasonable care that a bartender similarly situated would exercise.
The P was injured outside the bar.
Serve alcohol, permit loud, boisterous conduct, it led to fight, caused to damages to P
I: Whether violations of statute constitute negligence as a matter of law.
R: Yes
A violation of a statute constitutes negligence as a matter of law when the violation results in an injury to i) a member of a class of persons intended to be protected, and ii) when the harm is the kind which the statute was enacted to prevent.
A: The Act concerns matters having a direct relation to the creation of physical disturbances in bars which would create a
likelihood of injury to customers.
The act seeks to prevent abusive conduct and drunken clientele which results in serious injuries to customers.
The bar owner’s breach of duty to protect his patrons from harm resulting from a drunken brawl is negligence.
Pl was within a class intended to be protected, and the harm caused was the kind the statute intended to prevent.
C: Reversed and remanded for trial.
Co: 3 full test; is this the statute that can be established as per se negligence?
-
- P is class of person protected [class]
-
- harm suffered by P [harm]
-
- Is the statute manageable (as to whether it creates appropriate standard) [Appropriateness]
No comments:
Post a Comment