Negligence – Wrongful death – Agency relationship

Listen to this article

Where a defendant has moved for summary judgment in a wrongful death suit brought following a bar fight, the motion must be allowed given the defendant’s lack of control over the premises.

“Michael DiMaria was a patron of the Lansdowne Pub on the evening of August 13, 2010. Sometime after midnight, a dispute arose between one of his friends, Russell Notti, and another patron, Hector Guardiola. The two argued for one or two minutes, and others tried to pull them apart. Guardiola threw a glass at Notti but missed. The glass instead struck a wrought iron railing, broke into shards, and struck Michael DiMaria at his jugular vein. He began bleeding profusely. Although Boston EMS personnel arrived shortly thereafter, he became unresponsive within minutes. After being transferred to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, he was pronounced dead. …

“Concorde Entertainment, Inc. owns the Lansdowne Pub and Bill’s Bar. Both bars are on Lansdowne Street in Boston. Patrick Lyons and Edward Sparks are corporate officers of Concorde and hold ownership interests in the company. Lyons and Sparks also own [defendant] Lyons Group, Ltd. Lyons Group provides ‘back-of-the-house’ services to a number of New England dining and entertainment venues of which Lyons and Sparks are owners or members. Those services include licensing, buying insurance, accounting, human resources, and administrative services. The services do not, however, include day-to-day management. …

“Plaintiff contends that although Lyons Group did not own Concorde, Lyons Group had a right to control Concorde and therefore an agency relationship existed between them. Lyons Group may, under this theory, be held responsible for the alleged negligence and gross negligence of Concorde in maintaining the premises and providing security. …

“Here, the undisputed evidence demonstrates that Concorde alone was responsible for the operation of the Lansdowne Pub. Its employees were responsible for day-to-day management, hiring and firing, training, and staffing. Lyons Group assisted in certain discrete tasks, such as accounting, human resources, recruiting, and licensing. But it was removed from the everyday operation of the pub.

“Furthermore, the complaint specifically alleges a failure to provide adequate security. But plaintiff has submitted no evidence showing that Lyons Group had any role in, or control over, security. According to the record, Concorde alone was responsible for the hiring, training, discipline, and oversight of its security staff.

“[Stephen] Coyle’s statement in his deposition that Lyons Group ‘managed’ venues is not to the contrary. He also testified that by ‘management’ he meant providing accounting, human resources, and marketing services. … And he later testified that Lyons Group does not operate Lansdowne Pub, and does not control the Pub’s security operations. …

“No genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether an agency relationship existed between Concorde and Lyons Group that would give rise to a duty on behalf of Lyons Group to plaintiff. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment will be granted.”

DiMaria v. Concorde Entertainment, Inc., et al. (Lawyers Weekly No. 02-064-14) (8 pages) (Saylor, J.) (USDC) (Civil No. 12-11139-FDS) (Feb. 5, 2014).

Click here for the full-text opinion.