Goodwyn v. Belly Up Tavern CA4/1 (2013) · DecisionDepot
Goodwyn v. Belly Up Tavern CA4/1
California Court of Appeal Mar 18, 2013 No. D060680Unpublished
Filed 3/18/13 Goodwyn v. Belly Up Tavern CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
KOREY GOODWYN, D060680
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v. (Super. Ct. No. 37-2009-00061977- CU-PO-NC) BELLY UP TAVERN, LLC,
Defendant and Respondent.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jacqueline
M. Stern, Judge. Reversed with directions.
After a four-day trial, a jury found Belly Up Tavern, LLC (Belly Up) negligent in
failing to prevent injuries sustained by Kory Goodwyn in a fight at Belly Up's concert
venue and bar in Solana Beach, California. Belly Up moved for judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), contending there was insufficient evidence to
support the element of causation in Goodwyn's negligence claim. The trial court granted
the motion, reversing the jury's verdict, and entered judgment in favor of Belly Up.
Goodwyn appeals, contending there was sufficient evidence presented at trial to support
the jury's finding that Goodwyn's injuries were caused by Belly Up's breach of duty. We
On August 10, 2009, Goodwyn and Eddie Haynes attended a hip-hop concert at
Belly Up. During one of the opening acts, Goodwyn and Haynes were standing near the
bar and were approached by a group of seven other concertgoers. A man in the group
(the aggressor) looked at Haynes and without provocation said, "What you looking at,
nigger?" Haynes responded, "You need to go on with this stuff. I'm not here for this."
After this exchange, a companion of the aggressor intervened to diffuse the situation and
he and the aggressor stepped away from Haynes and Goodwyn. Goodwyn looked for a
security guard or bartender to intervene. He saw the only bartender on duty that night at
the other end of the bar, but could not get his attention. Another concertgoer, Kimberly
Handy, who met Haynes and Goodwyn for the first time at the concert and witnessed the
exchange, also unsuccessfully attempted to flag down the bartender.
A total of 10 security guards were on duty the night of the incident, three of whom
were employed by an outside security company and stationed in the parking lot. Of the
seven guards inside, two manned the entrance to check tickets and identification, one
monitored the VIP section and one was responsible for the smoking section. One of the
remaining three guards, James Phillips, was stationed at the bar where the initial
exchange involving Haynes occurred. Near the time of that initial exchange, however,
2
Phillips had moved away from the bar and was positioned near the stage to assist with a
verbal altercation between a performer and members of the audience.
A minute or so after the initial exchange with Haynes, the aggressor and his
companions returned and the aggressor instigated another argument with Haynes. The
aggressor threw a punch at Haynes and the two fell into a brawl on the floor. Goodwyn
attempted to come to Haynes's aid but was grabbed from behind, held to the ground and
repeatedly punched and kicked by the aggressor's friends. Haynes testified that the attack
seemed to last "an eternity," and Goodwyn testified that the fight seemed to last for eight
to 10 minutes. Handy similarly recalled the entire incident lasting about 10 minutes.
Goodwyn and Handy testified that the fight was not broken up by security guards and
ended only when the aggressor and his companions walked away. Haynes testified the
fight was broken up by bystanders and that Belly Up's security guards did not respond to
the altercation.
In contrast to the testimonies of Goodwyn, Haynes and Handy, the bartender
testified that once he saw the fight he signaled to Phillips, who made his way over and
broke up the fight with the assistance of three other security guards. The bartender
believed it took Phillips less than 50 seconds to move from his position near the stage to
the fight. Phillips testified that once he saw the fight from his position near the stage, he
immediately made his way to the location of the fight and broke it up. Another Belly Up
employee who was not working but was attending the concert witnessed the fight and
also testified Belly Up security ended the altercation.
3
After the incident ended, Haynes and Goodwyn left the building and asked
security guards stationed outside to call the police. Haynes and Goodwyn went to their
cars in the parking lot, assessed the situation and their injuries and left. Goodwyn
sustained physical injuries including large red lumps on the back of his skull, a black eye,
and swelling over the majority of his head, as well as ongoing headaches and difficulty
sleeping. Goodwyn, his mother and sister, and Haynes testified Goodwyn's demeanor
after the incident changed from a young man who enjoyed concerts to someone scared
and uncomfortable to be in crowded places.
Both parties presented expert testimony on the standard of care applicable to Belly
Up. Goodwyn's expert opined the venue was understaffed with respect to security
personnel the night of the incident, there was inadequate supervision of the security staff
and the security staff was not properly trained. Goodwyn's expert also testified he
believed Goodwyn's and Haynes's estimate of the length of time the fight lasted was
overstated, and estimated the fight probably lasted between two and four minutes. Belly
Up's rebuttal expert testified that the venue was adequately staffed, but conceded that if
the version of events presented by Goodwyn was accepted, the conduct of Belly Up's
security staff fell below the acceptable standard of care. He also testified that an
adequate response to a fight would have occurred within one minute of its start.
After a four-day trial, the jury found in Goodwyn's favor, awarding him $90,000 in
general damages and attributing 75 percent of the liability to Belly Up and 25 percent to
the unknown assailants. Belly Up moved for JNOV, arguing Goodwyn failed to
4
introduce any evidence showing Belly Up's conduct caused the harm to Goodwyn. 1 The
trial court agreed that no substantial evidence was presented to support the jury's verdict
on the element of causation, granted Belly Up's motion for JNOV and entered judgment
in favor of Belly Up.
DISCUSSION
The court may grant a JNOV " 'only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the
light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence
in support.' " (Cabral v. Ralphs Grocery Co. (2011) 51 Cal.4th 764, 770, quoting
Sweatman v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2001) 25 Cal.4th 62, 68.) The trial court
"cannot weigh the evidence [citation], or judge the credibility of witnesses. [Citation.] If
the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the motion
for [JNOV] should be denied." (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.) " 'As in
the trial court, the standard of review [on appeal] is whether any substantial evidence—
contradicted or uncontradicted—supports the jury's conclusion.' [Citation.]" (Cabral, at
p. 770.)
To establish Belly Up's negligence, Goodwyn was required to show Belly Up
owed a duty to Goodwyn, breached that duty and the breach was the cause of that injury.
(Ortega v. Kmart Corp. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1200, 1205.) The duty of a tavern keeper to
protect its patrons from injury by third parties arises in a number of circumstances,
1 Belly Up also moved in the alternative for a new trial on the ground that the evidence was insufficent to justify the jury's verdict and that the award of damages was excessive. The trial court denied the motion as moot in light of its ruling on the JNOV. 5
including the tavern keeper's failure to " 'stop a fight as soon as possible after it start[s].' "
(Saatzer v. Smith (1981) 122 Cal.App.3d 512, 518.) Belly Up does not dispute that it
owed a duty to Goodwyn and that Goodwyn presented adequate evidence of a breach of
this duty. Belly Up argues only that Goodwyn did not present sufficient evidence that its
breach—including failure to timely respond to the fight once it began—caused
Goodwyn's injuries.
A plaintiff is not required to establish causation with certainty. Instead, the
plaintiff must show that that the defendant's conduct was a " 'substantial factor' in
bringing about the injury." (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 774
(Saelzler).) More than "abstract negligence unconnected to the injury" is required.
(Noble v. Los Angeles Dodgers, Inc. (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d 912, 916.) The question of
what would have happened had the defendant acted otherwise, however, by its nature
involves an element of assumption. "Causation is generally a question for the jury unless
reasonable persons could not dispute the absence of causation, in which case it may be
treated as a question of law." (Lucas v. County of Los Angeles (1996) 47 Cal.App.4th
277, 289.)
Although there was contradictory evidence presented with respect to Belly Up's
response to the altercation, the jury heard testimony from which it could reasonably
conclude that Belly Up staff was aware, or should have been aware, of the fight but failed
to timely respond. Three witnesses stated that the fight lasted approximately 10 minutes
and that Belly Up's security guards never responded, with the fight ending only when the
perpetrators eventually walked away. Although Belly Up presented evidence that its staff
6
broke up the fight, its witnesses did not directly refute Goodwyn's evidence concerning
the length of the fight. While the bartender stated Phillips responded to the fight less than
one minute after the bartender noticed the physical altercation, neither the bartender nor
Phillips testified as to how long the altercation had been going on when they noticed it.
Belly Up's own expert testified that if Goodwyn's, Haynes's and Handy's versions of
events were believed, then Belly Up was "laying down on the job," and security should
have responded to the fight within 60 seconds of it erupting.
Unlike Saelzler and Nola M. v. University of Southern California (1993) 16
Cal.App.4th 421 (Nola M.), where causation was held to be tenuous or speculative, the
facts here provide the requisite "substantial evidence" of causation.2 Belly Up's failure to
respond at all to the fight, or failure to respond in a timely manner, supports an inference
that this conduct was a substantial factor resulting in Goodwyn's injuries. It was
reasonable for the jury to find that had Belly Up's staff intervened (at all, or earlier) the
2 In Saelzler, the California Supreme Court held that summary judgment was proper where the plaintiff failed to adequately show that an apartment complex owner's failure to provide certain security measures was a substantial cause of her assault by unknown assailants. The court concluded the plaintiff's evidence "merely shows the speculative possibility that additional daytime security guards and/or functioning security gates might have prevented the assault." (Saelzler, supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 781, italics added.) Likewise, in Nola M., the court found the plaintiff failed to present evidence that increased security measures by the defendant university could have prevented a sexual assault of the plaintiff that occurred on campus. (Nola M., supra, 16 Cal.App.4th at pp. 436-439.) In both of these cases, the causal link between the injury and the property owner's breach of duty was more speculative than the link between Belly Up's conduct (i.e., failing to stop the fight as soon as possible) and Goodwyn's injuries.
7
injuries would have been lessened or prevented altogether. The trial court erred by
overturning the jury's verdict.3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is reversed with directions to reinstate the jury verdict and enter
judgment accordingly. Plaintiff is awarded costs on appeal.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O'ROURKE, J.
IRION, J.
3 In its respondent's brief, Belly Up requests we direct the trial court to reconsider its motion for a new trial, which was denied as moot in light of the trial court's ruling on the JNOV. Belly Up, however, has not appealed the court's ruling. 8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The trial court erred in granting judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) because there was substantial evidence for the jury to conclude that the defendant's failure to timely intervene in a fight was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.
Issues
Whether there was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding that the defendant's breach of duty was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's injuries.
Whether the trial court improperly weighed evidence or judged witness credibility in granting the JNOV.
Disposition. reversed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial court erred by overturning the jury's verdict.”
“Belly Up's failure to respond at all to the fight, or failure to respond in a timely manner, supports an inference that this conduct was a substantial factor resulting in Goodwyn's injuries.”