Description: Hartford, Connecticut personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiff on a negligence theory.

The plaintiffs commenced the present action in December, 2022. In count four of the complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant[3] ''owned, leased, rented, controlled, possessed, operated, managed, and/ or maintained the premises at 61 Savitt Way, Hartford,'' which is known as the Xfinity Theatre. On June 25, 2022, the defendant organized, promoted, and held the Dierks Bentley ''Beers On Me'' concert (concert) at the Xfinity Theatre and ''permitted patrons to loiter and consume alcoholic beverages (hereinafter referred to as 'tailgating') in the parking lots located on the aforementioned premises before the start of the [concert].'' The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant ''knew, or should have known, that . . . there would be thousands of patrons present on the aforementioned premises, many of whom would consume alcohol excessively to the point of intoxication and would foreseeably operate motor vehicles while in an intoxicated state, [and that] . . . based on past events, there would be a substantial number of arrests, criminal acts, and motor vehicle accidents, directly and proximately caused by the consumption of alcohol by patrons who participated in tailgating on the defendant's premises.''

The plaintiffs further alleged: ''At the same time and place, one Jacob Coffey was a ticket holder for the . . . concert and was present on the defendant's premises for the purposes of attending the concert and tailgating in the parking lot prior to the show,'' Coffey ''consumed an excessive amount of alcohol to the point of intoxication while on the defendant's premises,'' and the defendant ''knew, or should have known, that . . . Coffey was intoxicated and, as a result thereof, presented an unreasonable risk of harm to others.'' The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant denied Coffey ''entry into the concert due to this level of intoxication,'' and that, ''upon being informed that he was denied entry into the concert, [Coffey] became combative with the defendant.'' According to the plaintiffs' allegations, Coffey then ''left the entrance area and walked to a portable toilet in the parking lot and, due to his intoxication, passed out inside the portable toilet for an extended period of time.'' The plaintiffs alleged that Coffey was
''extricated from the portable toilet by two friends, who alerted the defendant . . . of the concerns that they had for . . . Coffey and his level of intoxication'' and that the defendant ''responded to the friends' request for assistance'' but ''took no action to address the concerns regarding'' Coffey. The plaintiffs alleged that ''Coffey became combative and argumentative with his friends and, at some point thereafter, went back to his vehicle and drove off the premises.''

The plaintiffs alleged that, ''[s]hortly thereafter, at approximately 8:24 p.m.... Coffey was operating a motor vehicle in a westerly direction on Colt Highway, at or near its intersection with Birdseye Road, both of which are public roads or highways in Farmington,'' and Roux ''was operating a motor vehicle in a southerly direction on Birdseye Road, at or near its intersection with Colt Highway.'' ''Coffey, as a result of his intoxication, disregarded the red traffic signal that governed his lane of travel and proceeded into the intersection of Colt Highway and Birdseye Road and collided with the motor vehicle operated by . . . Roux, causing [Roux] to sustain and suffer . . . catastrophic fatal injuries and losses .... [F]ollowing the collision, at approximately 9:40 p.m.... Coffey had his blood drawn, which indicated a blood alcohol content of 0.191.''[4]

The plaintiffs alleged that the fatal injuries and losses sustained were caused by the negligence and carelessness of the defendant in one or more of the following ways: ''[T]hey voluntarily undertook to deny . . . Coffey entry to the venue due to his level of intoxication but, in so doing, failed to properly address the danger that he presented, thereby increasing the risk of harm to others; and/or . . . they voluntarily undertook to investigate and/or respond to concerns presented by other patrons regarding . . . Coffey but, in so doing, failed to take additional action to prevent or address the danger . . . Coffey presented, thereby increasing the risk of harm to others; and/or . . . they knew, or should have known, the risks attendant to tailgating, including the heightened risk that patrons would consume alcohol excessively on the premises and subsequently operate motor vehicles and failed to take adequate measures to prevent such conduct; and/or . . . they knew, or should have known, that there would be a large number of patrons on the premises who would consume alcohol excessively but failed to implement adequate security or safety measures to control and prevent such persons from presenting an unreasonable risk of harm to others, including [Roux]; and/or . . . they encouraged, promoted, and/or permitted the consumption of alcohol on the premises but failed to implement adequate security and/or safety measures to prevent excessive alcohol consumption and drunk driving; and/or . . . they knew, or should have known, that . . . Coffey was intoxicated and presented a foreseeable risk to others, including by way of operating a motor vehicle under the influence, but failed to prevent him from doing so; and/or . . . they failed to have adequate policies, procedures, or guidelines to address and prevent the excessive consumption of alcohol by patrons tailgating in the parking lot and/or to prevent such patrons from operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol; and/or . . . they failed to ensure that there were adequate security personnel in the parking lot during the permitted tailgating hours to prevent the excessive consumption of alcohol and drunk driving; and/or . . . they failed to train their officers, agents, apparent agents, and/or employees in proper procedures for identifying and responding to reports of intoxicated individuals, such as the one involving . . . Coffey, on the premises and/or preventing such persons from leaving the premises through the operation of a motor vehicle; and/or . . . they failed to notify municipal police officers, including officers on the premises, that . . . Coffey was highly intoxicated and intending to operate a motor vehicle on a public thoroughfare, at substantial risk to other motorists, including'' Roux. The plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the negligence and carelessness of the defendant, Roux suffered catastrophic personal injuries resulting in his untimely death.

In count five, the plaintiffs incorporated certain allegations of count four and further alleged that the defendant ''knew, or should have known, that tailgating without adequate security and/or safety measures in place to prevent or control thousands of patrons from consuming alcohol excessively and/or driving while under the influence, had a natural tendency to create danger and inflict injury to other persons,'' the ''risks attendant to tailgating at the Xfinity Theatre were continuous and ongoing,'' and ''the use of the premises at the Xfinity Theatre, including the parking lots located thereon, by the defendant . . . was unreasonable under the circumstances.'' The plaintiffs alleged that ''[t]he public nuisance created by the unreasonable use of the land interfered with a right common to the general public to use public roads and highways; specifically, given the risks presented by intoxicated drivers who had consumed alcohol excessively while on the defendant's premises.'' The plaintiffs alleged that the public nuisance ''was a direct and proximate cause of the catastrophic fatal injuries and losses sustained'' by Roux. All counts alleged against the defendant were brought pursuant to the wrongful death statute, General Statutes § 52-555.

* * *

In response to the complaint, on April 10, 2023, the defendant filed a motion to strike the three counts[5]brought against it and an accompanying memorandum of law in support of its motion to strike. In support of its motion to strike, the defendant argued that counts four and five of the complaint were legally insufficient. With respect to count four, the defendant argued that ''a premises owner has no duty to prevent an intoxicated person from leaving the premises and causing an accident off the premises.'' With respect to count five, the defendant also argued that there was no cognizable duty supporting a public nuisance claim and that ''the type of nuisance alleged [could not] as a matter of law, be considered the 'proximate cause' of a drunk driving accident off the premises.'' The defendant argued that the claims asserted in counts four and five were precluded by our Supreme Court's decision in Demond v. Project Service, LLC, 331 Conn. 816, 208 A.3d 626 (2019).

* * *

Legal issue Can a premises owner be held liable for negligence or public nuisance for actions of an intoxicated individual who causes harm off-premises, following denial of entry due to intoxication?
Headnote

TORT LAW. PREMISES LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENT INTERVENTION. The case considers whether a premises owner has a duty to prevent harm caused off-premises by an intoxicated person who became intoxicated on the premises and subsequently caused injury in a traffic accident after leaving the property. The court affirmed that the premises owner has no such duty and any risk of harm is not proximately caused by the owner's actions, but rather by the independent actions of the intoxicated individual.

TORT LAW. PUBLIC NUISANCE. The court examined whether the maintenance of conditions that enable excessive alcohol consumption on a property, such as during a concert event, constitutes a public nuisance when an intoxicated individual leaves the premises and causes a traffic accident. It held that established legal principles do not consider such conduct by landowners as the proximate cause of public nuisances occurring off the premises, affirming no duty extends to the protection against drunk drivers’ actions resulting from their own choices.

Key Phrases Coadministrator estate. Public nuisance claim. Negligence claim. Premises liability. Intoxicated driver.

Outcome: Affirmed

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: