Legal Question in Personal Injury in California

Re: refused help

The owner of the business is liable for the wrongdoing of its employee so long as the employee was acting within the course and scope of the employment. In this case, the employee was probably in charge of security. Given the facts as you described them, it appears you have a solid case. If you are in So. Cal., give us a call or email. We would love to help you out.

Re: refused help

You say both that your attacker was "an employee of the bar" and "obviously a friend of the bar". If he was an employee and was on duty at the time you probably have a strong case against both him and the bar. You may even have a good case if he was off-duty, but that would depend upon the facts.

If he was just a friend of someone at the bar then the bar is not responsible for his actions unless it should have foreseen what he was going to do to you. It was stupid of the bar not to make him leave, but the fact that he was allowed to stay did not contribute to your injuries and does not make the bar any more liable than it would have been had it made him leave.

You also ask about the bar's duty to render aid. Whether it had such a duty and to what extent depends upon details you haven't provided. Chances are that it had no such duty if the attacker was just "a friend of the bar". But even if the bar did owe you such a duty I'm not sure that its breach of that duty made your situation any worse, so your probably don't have a separate claim here. On the other hand, if the attacker was working for the bar at the time, the bar's nonchalance may help you get an award of punitive damages.

I recently worked on a very similar case at the appellate level. (We won, but the client had also won at trial and I can't take much credit for having defended an obviously correct verdict.) Since I also handle civil litigation I would be pleased to discuss your case with you.

Re: refused help

This one is a definite maybe. Investigation would have to be done to determine if the bar knew or should have known of the propensity of the attacker, and if the bar failed to exercise reasonable care for the safety of its patrons.

Failure to render help would seem not to be the issue as it didn't appreciably increase your injury.

Have a personal injury attorney file suit and go to work. It should be done on contingency, but you probably will have to front your out of pocket costs.

Re: refused help

If the employee was acting within the scope and course of his employment, the employer may be liable for your injuries. I say "may" because it is possible that this particular employee may have never assaulted a customer in the past and/or perhaps the employer/bar was unaware that the employee has violent propensities. Please note that this is merely a defense that the defendant can raise, but it may not fly in court.

Another way the employer/bar may be responsible for your injuries would be that it did not act to prevent or reduce the harm caused to you. If a defendant is directly or indirectly responsible for the injuries to a plaintiff, this imposes a duty upon the defendant to help the plaintiff in a way that will prevent or minimize the harm. Since the bar owner's employee assaulted you and the owner failed to act in anyway to prevent or reduce the harm to you, and/or failed to call an ambulance after the attack, or assist you in any way, the may be liable for your injuries. I hope that this helped.

If you need representation, please do not hesitate to contact my office at, 818.943.0462.

David B. Lupoff, Esq.

Re: refused help

I have not read the other attorney responses. I am answering your question now because I just got in from a long day at Court, and a mediation. You have a great case. I regularly handle cases like this on a daily basis.

You may call me directly on my cell phone for a free consultation at 818-427-6246, or you may call my office at 818-739-1544 ext. 10 .