 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Brewer v. Monqui7/25/2005
JUDGES: Concurring: Marlin Appelwick William Baker
UNPUBLISHED
The dispositive issue in this personal injury action for purposes of the summary judgment order of dismissal before us for review is whether Monqui, Inc. (Monqui) owed a duty to Pamela Brewer for the injuries she suffered during a concert at Key Arena. We hold that the company owed her a duty of a possessor of land to its business invitee. Accordingly, we reverse and remand.
Brewer allegedly suffered a neck injury at a December 1998 concert at Key Arena. A Contemporary Services Corporation (CSC) security staff member pulled a 'crowd surfer' down from being passed around by the crowd, hitting Brewer in the process. Crowd surfing occurs when the crowd hoists one or more crowd members above the crowd and passes the member around. CSC, at the direction of the City of Seattle, was the exclusive provider of security services for this concert. Monqui was the promoter and had a written license from the City to occupy and use Key Arena for the concert.
Brewer sued Monqui for negligence. It does not appear from the record that either Brewer or Monqui sued either CSC or the City. Monqui moved for summary judgment, contending that it did not owe Brewer any duty and that the City retained exclusive control over the security services that CSC provided. The trial court granted the motion. Brewer appeals.
DUTY
Brewer first argues that Monqui had a non-delegable duty to her as its business invitee. We agree.
An order granting summary judgment may be affirmed if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The moving party bears the initial burden of showing an absence of evidence. If the moving defendant meets the initial burden, then the inquiry shifts to the party with the burden of proof at trial.
'If ... the {party} 'fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial', then the trial court should grant the motion.' A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo.
In any negligence case, the plaintiff must prove duty, breach, causation, and damages. Here, the dispositive issue for purposes of this motion is whether Monqui owed Brewer a duty. Whether a duty exists is a question of law, which we determine de novo.
Duty to Protect a Business Invitee from Third-Party Conduct
Brewer argues that Monqui had a duty to protect her from the negligent actions of CSC. We agree.
In Nivens v. 7-11 Hoagy's Corner, a customer sued a convenience store and franchisor for injuries sustained when he was assaulted by teenagers loitering in the store's parking lot. The customer claimed the store had a duty to provide security guards. There, the supreme court first explained that there was no duty at common law to protect people in general from the acts of third persons. But the court noted certain exceptions to the common law based on the special relationship between a business and its invitee. The relationship arises because the invitee enters the business premises for the economic benefit of the business.
The court then expressly held that a business owes a duty to its business invitees under Restatement (Second) of Torts sec. 344, which provides in pertinent part:
A possessor of land who holds it open to the public for entry for his business purposes is subject to liability to members of the public while they are upon the land for such a purpose, for physical harm caused by the accidental, negligent, or intent
Page 1 2 3 4 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|