`
`
`
`DOCKET NO. CV16-6009509-S
`
`ROBERT PLOURDE
`
`'
`
`'
`
`.
`
`'
`
`'
`
`_
`
`V.
`
`.
`
`'
`
`GEORGE J. BUTLER, ET AL.
`
`2
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`:
`
`SUPERIOR COURT I
`
`-
`
`JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN
`
`AT MERIDEN ‘
`
`SEPTEMBER 17, 2019
`
`MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
`RE: DEFENDANTS? MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT #119 & #125
`AND PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION #123
`'
`
`The court, having-reviewed and considered the Defendants‘ Motion for Summary
`Judgment and supporting exhibits and the Plaintiff‘s Objection with supporting exhibits, and
`having considered the oral arguments presented at short calendar on September 9, 2019, hereby '
`DENIES the Defendants' summaryjudgment motion and SUSTAINS the Plaintiff‘s objection to
`
`such.
`
`, The court bases its'ruling on the following.
`I
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`By a. four count Complaint dated July 19, 2016 and returnable on August 30, 2016,
`
`Plaintiff Robert Plourde brings suit against the Defendants George Butler, Kevin 'Lemay,
`MOOnshine Boys LLC,Brandon Webb and Kyle Laurendeau as a result ofan incident on August
`5, 2014 at the Double Play Café located at 278 West Main Street in Meriden, Connecticut.
`_ Plaintiff Plourde alleges that he was severely attacked and permanently injured at the
`
`Double Play when he was punched and kicked repeatedly by intoxicated patrons. He seeks
`
`compensatory and punitive damages against the defendants. Plaintiff claims serious physical
`
`
`
`Judicial Distict of New Haven at Meriden
`SUPERIOR COURT
`FILED
`
`, SEP 17, 2019
`
`CHIEF CLERK’S OFFICE.
`
`
`
`injuries from this incident including but not limited to traumatic brain injury, subdural hematoma,
`
`traumatic brain hemorrhaging, facial fractures, impaired cognitive function, memory loss and
`
`permanent loss of life's enjoyment.
`
`_ In Counts One and Two, he brings Suit against the Defendants Butler, Lemay and
`
`Moonshine Boys LLC alleging that they were the permittee, owner, backer, manager and operator
`
`of the Double Play Café.
`
`In count One, he specifically asserts a claim of negligence against these defendants
`
`claiming that the incident andhis resulting injuries and losses were caused by their negligence
`
`in that: (1) they failed to establish and/or-follow adequate procedures forremoving drunk, violent
`.and/orunrulypatrons from thepremises; (2) theyfailedto properlytrainits emplOyees to remove
`
`drunk, violent and/or dangerous patrons from the premises; (3) they failed to adequately supervise
`
`and maintain the premises so as to prevent assaults on the premises; (4) they failed to provide
`
`adequate security on the premises; (5) they knew that Brandon Webb and Kyle Laurendeau were
`
`having verbal altercations with other patrons, yet failed to remove him or call the police; (6) they
`
`failed to warn the plaintiff that the premises was dangerous; (7) they failed to properly train the
`
`bartender and staff; (8) they knew that Brandon Webb. and/or Kyle Laurendeau were intoxicated
`
`and that he had violent propensities, yet allowed him to enter, remain and consume alcohol on
`
`the premises and/or (9) they allowed the aSsault to continue and failed to aid the plaintiff.
`
`In the second Count, the-Plaintiff asserts a claim of recklessness, willful and/or wanton
`
`misconduct against these same defendants. At paragraph 6 ofthe Second Count, be specifically
`
`alleges that the defendants were responsible as follows: (a) they maintained an alcohol service
`
`policy Within the bar and/or restaurant in which intoxicated patrons would not be refused service;
`
`
`
`
`
`(b) they knew that patrons often fought within the bar yet failed to have staffprevent these fights;
`
`(c) they knew that the visibly intoxicated persons were interacting with other patrons in an
`
`aggressive manner, yet failed to address the situation; ((1) they allowed the visibly. intoxicated
`
`patrons to remain on the premises when they knew he was a danger to other patrons; (e) they
`
`knew fights were a problem at the Double Play Café yet failed to enact and/0r follow any
`procedures for (security andservice’of alcohol; and/or (f) they served Brandon Webb and Kyle
`
`Laurendeau alcohol when they were visibly intoxicated and having verbal confrontations With
`
`other patrons.
`
`Plaintiffin the Third and Fourth Counts has asserted negligence claims versus Defendant
`
`Webb and Defendant Laurendeau. These counts and these defendants are not involved with this
`
`current Motion for Summary Judgment.
`
`By Answer and Special Defense dated January 10, 2017 the Defendants Butler, Lemay
`
`and Moonshine Boys LLC generally deny all claims of negligence, recklessness and willful
`
`wanton misconduct and deny causing the plaintiffs incident and/or his claimed injuries, losses
`
`and damages.
`
`In three Special Defenses, they allege that they are not responsible because: (1) plaintiffs
`
`own comparative negligence was the cause or substantial cause of his own injuries; (2) the
`
`negligence of a third person not a party to this action was the cause or a substantial cause of his
`
`own injuries; and (3) plaintiffs'injuries were caused by the intervening acts or superseding
`negligence of persons, parties or entities over whom the defendant had no control or
`
`responsibility, and for whose actions the defendants are not liable. They further claim plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`was injured as a result of violent and unlawful acts of the codefendants Webb and Laurendeau
`
`and/or other unknown individuals.
`
`The Plaintiffreplied to said Special Defenses on or about March 15, 2017.
`
`By Motion for Summary Judgment dated March 12, 2019 (#119) and amended and
`
`updated to June 20, 2019 (#125), the defendants move for judgment, arguing that they did not
`
`owe the plaintiffany duty ofcare with regards to the altercation and thus the claims ofnegligence
`
`and recklessness cannot stand. They submit a memorandum of law dated February 6, 2019 and
`
`supplemental filing as of June 20, 2019 with exhibits in support of this motion. Those exhibits
`
`include: (1) Deposition transcript of Kyle Laurendeau taken on August 17, 2017; (2)‘Arrest
`
`Warrant for Brandon Webb dated September 18, 2014; and (3_) Meriden Pelice Department Case
`
`Supplemental Report dated September 2, 2014.
`
`I
`
`i
`
`Plaintiffobjects to this Motion for Summary Judgment by Objection dated May 6, 2019
`
`(#123) along with supporting exhibits. Those exhibits include Defendant Lemay Compliance
`
`dated December 8, 2017 and signed as of November 14, 2017 to, written discovery questions.
`
`The parties presented for oral argument at short calendar on September 9, 2019.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD" OF REVIEW - SUMMARY JUDGMENT GENERALLY
`
`"Summary judgment is a method ofresolving litigation when pleadings, affidavits, and
`any other proofsubmitted show that there is no genuine issue as to anymaterial fact and that the
`moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. .
`.
`. The motion for summary judgment
`
`is designed to eliminate the delay and expense of litigating an issue when there is no real issue
`
`to be tried. .
`
`.
`
`. However, since litigants ordinarily have a constitutional right to have issues offact
`
`decided by a jury .
`
`.
`
`. the moving party for summary judgment is held to a strict standard .
`
`.
`
`. of
`
`
`
`
`
`demonstrating his entitlement to summary judgmen ."
`
`(Citation omitted; footnote omitted;
`
`internal quotation marks omitted.) ‘Grenier v. Commissioner ofTransportation, 306 Conn. 523,
`
`534-35, 51 A.3d 367 (2012).
`
`"Issues ofnegligence are ordinarily not susceptible ofsummary adjudication but should
`
`be resolved by trial in the ordinary manner." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Fogarty V.
`
`Rashaw, 193 Conn. 442, 446, 476 A.2d 582 (1984). "Summaryjudgment procedure is especially
`
`ill—adapted to negligence cases, where .
`
`.
`
`. the ultimate issue in contention involves a mixed
`
`question of fact and law, and requires the trier of fact to determine whether the standard of care .
`
`was met in a specific situation. .
`
`.
`
`. [T]he conclusion of negligence is necessarily one of fact .
`
`.
`
`. ." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Michaud v. Gurney, 168 Conn. 431,
`
`434, 362 A.2d 857 (1975).
`
`' "[T]he issue of whether a defendant owes a duty of care is an appropriate matter for
`
`summary judgment because the question is one of law." (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
`
`Mozeleski v. Thomas, 76 Conn. App. 287,290, 818 A.2d 893, cert. denied, 264 Conn. 904, 823
`
`. A12d 1221 (2003). "The existence of a duty is a question of law and only if such a duty is found
`
`to exist does the trier of fact then determine whether the defendant violated that duty in the
`
`particular situation at hand.'v' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Sic V. Nunan, 307 Conn. 399,
`
`407, 54 A.3d 553 (2012).
`
`In this case based on negligence and recklessness theories, the defendants ask this court
`
`to apply the above analysis and to find that there are no genuine issues of material fact; and to
`
`find that no duty is owed to'the Plaintiff Plourde to protect him from an altercation that occurred
`
`outside of Double Play on August 5, 2014. They do not cite any Connecticut appellate court
`
`
`
`authority in support of this argu'ment; but they do cite a number of trial court decisions dealing
`
`with similar assault claims against bar establishments. See Navarro V. Santiago, Superior Court,
`
`judicial district of Windham ‘at Putnam, CV 126005750 (Boland, Jr. - Oct. 8, 2014) [ SJ granted
`
`- — sudden stabbing] 2014 WL 6461940; Coppola V. Plan B LLC, Superior Court, judicial district
`
`of New Haven, CV 075012215 (Corradino, J. - Oct. 7, 2010) 2010 WL 4352658; Daddana V.
`
`Mutual Benefit Society ofthe Marcheltaly, Inc., Superior Court, judicial district of Fairfield at
`Bridgeport CV 0303995655 (Gilardi, J. — Aug. 18, 2005) 2005 VVL 2210650 [Sudden bar fight
`
`inside social club - no prior" notice]; Deedon V. Friends ofJasper'McLevy, Superior Court,
`
`judicial district of Fairfield at Bridgeport CV 000372489 (Wolven, J. - Jan. 8, 2003) 2003 WL
`
`190762 [patron suddenly knocked off bar stool]; Winston V. Pool Hand Luke’s Inc., Superior
`
`Court, judicial district of New London, CV 555438 (Corradino, J. .- May 14, 2003) 2003 WL
`
`21235288 [shooting outside bar involving dram shop liability ]; and Flanagan V. The Grill,
`
`Superior Court, judicial district ofHartford at Hartford, CV 010808992 (Satter, J. - Feb. 15, 2006)
`
`» 2006 WL 494647 [judgment for plaintiff after trial on merits against bar - hit by cue stick while
`
`patron inside bar].
`
`, Plaintiff, in response, argues that this court should find a very clear duty owed to him as
`
`the harm suffered was foreseeable. He argues that it was foreseeable that patrons who have
`
`consumed alcohol and engage in heated verbal altercations inside the bar mayresult in an attack.
`
`He cites two trial court decisions supporting this and argues that the cases cited by the defense »
`
`are distinguishable. See Flanagan v. The Grill, supra; and Jensen V. DePaolo, Superior Court
`
`- judicial district of New Haven at Meriden, CV 01-0277460 (Wiese, J. — March 8, 2004)
`
`[Sudden aSSault inside bar] ;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ANALYSIS
`
`It is well recognized that the Connecticut courts recognize a common law cause of action
`innegligence and/orrecklessness against aproprietor orpermittee Ofarestaurant orbar for failing
`
`to exercise reasonable care-in the supervision of the conduct ofthe patrons or Visitors within the
`
`establishment. Nolan v. Morelli, 154 Conn. 432, 440-41, 226 A.2d 383 (1967).
`
`A fundamental part of any negligence case is the existence of a duty owed by the
`defendants to the plaintiff. "Duty is a legal conclusion about relationships between individuals,
`
`made after the fact, and imperative to a negligence cause of action. The nature of the duty and
`
`the specific persons to whom it is_owed, are determined by the circumstances surrounding the
`
`conduct ofthe individual. . . Although it has been said that no universal test for duty has ever been
`
`formulated our threshold inquiry has always been whether the specific harm alleged by the
`
`plaintiff was foreseeable to the defendant. The ultimate test ofithe existence of the duty to use
`
`care is found in the foreseeability that harm may result ifit is not exercised." (Citations omitted;
`internal quotation marlcs omitted.) Perodeau v. Hartford, 259 Conn. 729, 754, 792 A.2d 752
`
`(2002); Daddana,supra.
`
`‘-
`
`When applying the above trial court decisions to the case at bar, this court finds that there
`
`is a duty owed by these defendants to the PlaintiffPlourde under the facts presented in this action,
`
`and therefore summary judgment must be denied.
`
`In reaching this conclusion, this court does not rnean to imply that the Plaintiff
`
`automatically is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. But, the court does recognize that there
`
`are enough issues of fact to send this case to a jury, as the trier of fact, for ultimate determination
`
`if the conduct of the bar defendants breached that duty and, then further if that breach of duty
`
`proximately caused the incident and the resulting claimed injuries, losses and damages.
`
`
`
`In this court's review of the supporting documents provided by the defense, one sees an
`
`incident involving several malebar patrons that started‘inside the Double Play Cafe in a verbal
`
`altercation, and then culminated in a physical assault twenty (20) minutes later on Plaintiff
`
`Plourde outside during the late evening hours of August 15, 2014. Who was or was not
`
`intoxicated or impaired is not clear from the facts presented in the motion. The bartender on duty,
`
`Eddie Medina, was aware of the verbal altercation between the male patrons inside the bar and
`
`as the incident spilled to‘the outsidearea of the bar, it becomes potentially foreseeable for a jury
`
`to conclude that the. bar's conduct created a foreseeable duty supervise this situation. This
`
`incident outside the bar was not the sudden unpredictable occurrence described by the trial courts
`
`in the many cases where summary judgment was granted in favor of the bar keeper.
`
`The documents provided by the defense further support this conclusion. The information
`
`contained in the deposition transcript of Kyle Laurendeau; Meriden Police Report and Arrest
`
`Warrant for Defendant Brandon Webb's arrest shows several variations ofwhat happened inside:
`
`and outside the bar on the night in question. The main players involved in this incident appear
`to be Kyle Laurendeau; Robert Plourde, Michael Woronick, Eric Teitelbaum, and Brandon Webb
`
`along with bartender Eddie Medina.
`
`As to who the trier of fact will believe as to being the victim or the aggressor supports
`
`genuine issues ef'materialfact' on the liability of the defendant Café; and on the comparative
`
`negligence defenses raised by the defense on Plaintiff Plourde's conduct.
`
`Last, this court finds‘the trial court decisions relied upon by the defense distinguishable
`
`from the case. at bar.
`
`In those decisions where summary judgment was granted, no facts were
`
`presented showmg something to support more foreseeability than a sudden, unexpected
`
`intervening criminal act; Thus, the court finds the arguments of the plaintiff more persuasive.
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Therefore, as a matter of law, this court is DENYING‘the Defendants‘ Motion for
`
`Summary Judgment and SUSTAINING the Plaintiff‘s Objection to the Motion.
`
`BY THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
