Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

negligencetrialtestimonymotionsustainedduty of carecredibility
defendantnegligencetrialmotioncredibility

Related Cases

Augspurger v. Western Auto Supply Co., 257 Iowa 777, 134 N.W.2d 913, 8 A.L.R.3d 1
View Case »
Korbin v. Berlin, 177 So.2d 551
View Case »
Maussner v. Atlantic City Country Club, Inc., 299 N.J.Super. 535, 691 A.2d 826, 65 USLW 2677
View Case »
Daniels v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 183 Mass. 393, 67 N.E. 424, 62 L.R.A. 751
View Case »
Hopkins v. Drowne, 21 R.I. 20, 41 A. 567
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Bitgood v. Greene, 108 A.3d 1023

Facts

On February 4, 2009, Wayne Bitgood and Ryan Gardiner were patrons at a bar owned by Gordon Greene Post Number 27. After two physical altercations, the second occurring in the parking lot, Bitgood sustained serious injuries that required hospitalization. He filed a negligence claim against the bar, alleging that the owner failed to ensure his safety by not calling the police after the first altercation. The jury ultimately found both parties negligent, attributing 80% of the negligence to the bar and 20% to Bitgood.

On February 4, 2009, Bitgood and Ryan Gardiner were patrons at the bar on defendant's premises. Two physical altercations occurred between the men; the first inside the bar, and the second in defendant's parking lot approximately ten to fifteen minutes later.

Issue

Did the trial justice err in denying the premises owner's motion for a new trial and/or remittitur based on the jury's apportionment of negligence?

The defendant argues that the trial justice was clearly wrong to deny its motion for a new trial because the evidence was not evenly balanced.

Rule

The court applied the standard of care expected of bar owners to protect patrons from foreseeable harm, which includes calling the police during or after physical altercations.

The court applied the standard of care expected of bar owners to protect patrons from foreseeable harm, which includes calling the police during or after physical altercations.

Analysis

The court found that the trial justice properly evaluated the evidence, including witness credibility and the circumstances surrounding the altercations. The testimony indicated that the bar staff failed to call the police after the first altercation, which was deemed a breach of the duty of care owed to patrons. The jury's decision to apportion 80% of the negligence to the bar was supported by the evidence presented.

The court found that the trial justice properly evaluated the evidence, including witness credibility and the circumstances surrounding the altercations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings and that the trial justice did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, concluding that the evidence supported the jury's findings and that the trial justice did not err in denying the motion for a new trial.

Who won?

Wayne Bitgood prevailed in the case because the jury found that the premises owner was primarily responsible for the negligence that led to his injuries.

Wayne Bitgood prevailed in the case because the jury found that the premises owner was primarily responsible for the negligence that led to his injuries.

You must be