This morning, in a much anticipated decision, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in favor of a plaintiff (Smith) who suffered a brain and other injuries in a brawl between fraternity members and people attending a wedding party in the bar at a Conroe resort. Smith sued the resort, arguing that the resort lacked adequate security. He presented evidence of escalating tensions between members of the two groups preceding the fight and as many as 11 documented and 25 reported-but-undocumented fights at the resort in the previous three years. Jurors found Del Lago negligent and awarded Smith almost $1.5 million in damages. The court of appeals affirmed.
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court decisions and held (1) the resort had a duty to protect Smith because it had actual and direct knowledge a violent confrontation was imminent and had time to stop it and (2) legally sufficient evidence exists to show a breach of duty that proximately caused Smith’s injuries. Del Lago’s duty arose not because of prior similar criminal conduct but because it was aware of an unreasonable risk of harm at the bar that night. When a landowner has actual or constructive knowledge of any premises condition that poses an unreasonable harm risk to invitees, that owner has a duty to take whatever action is reasonably prudent to reduce or eliminate the risk. Del Lago observed, but did nothing to reduce, an hour and a half of verbal and physical hostility in the bar. Del Lago continued to serve drunken rivals who were engaged in repeated and aggressive confrontations. The court said a reasonable and fair-minded jury could find that Del Lago breached its duty to Smith by failing to take reasonable steps to defuse the dangerous situation at the bar.
Three of the nine member court filed vigorous dissents. One of the dissenters, Judge Hecht, first observed that the plaintiff was well aware of the escalating tensions between the groups before he was injured. However, the Court now determines that “in some circumstances” no warning can be adequate when the Texas rule for premises liability has been that a possessor of land discharges his duty to protect an entrant from a condition that poses an unreasonable risk by giving an adequate warning. Which ones, exactly, the Court does not specify, saying only that Smith’s full appreciation of the risk of injury from a bar fight “hardly seems” adequate. So the rule has become that an adequate warning discharges a land possessor’s duty except in circumstances when any warning hardly seems adequate. In other words, there is no rule. Del Lago Partners Inc., et al. v. Bradley Smith (April 2, 2010)
We will cover this and other important developments of the year at our full day, fully accredited 15th Annual Ultimate Claims Handling Seminar on October 1, 2010 at CityPlace Conference Center in Dallas, Texas. Mark your calendars now and save the date. Registration will open in August.