Opinion
No. CV 05-500 02 93 S
August 30, 2006
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
On October 22, 2003, at approximately 12:00 a.m., the plaintiff was watching television at the Sports Page bar and restaurant, owned by the defendant, Joseph Lenzen, in the city of Bridgeport.
Approximately thirty minutes after arriving, gunshots rang out. The plaintiff suffered a gunshot wound to his upper left arm. He was taken to Bridgeport Hospital where he was treated and released. The next day he suffered extreme pain. He sought after care at Hand Surgery of Southern Connecticut and continued care until he was economically unable to do so.
The plaintiff is claiming past economic damages in the form of medical bills in the amount of $3,709.54 and non-economic damages in the amount of $52,000 The defendant was defaulted for failure to appear in court on November 17, 2005, and was not present at trial.
I LIABILITY
"The essential elements of a cause of action in negligence are well established: duty; breach of that duty; causation; and actual injury." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) LePage v. Horne, 262 Conn. 116, 123, 809 A.2d 505 (2002). The court finds that the plaintiff has proven these elements by a fair preponderance of the evidence.
The plaintiff testified that on October 22, 2003, he entered the defendant's establishment. When the plaintiff paid a cover to enter the defendant's bar he gained the status of business invitee. 2 Restatement (Second) Torts, Invitee Defined § 332, p. 7304 (2005); Jagger v. Mohawk Mountain Ski Area, Inc., CT Page 15866 269 Conn. 672, 687-88, 849 A.2d 813 (2004). The defendant had a duty to maintain security on the premises in such a way as to prevent the plaintiff from foreseeable harm. See Monk v. Temple George Associates, 273 Conn. 108, 869 A.2d 179 (2005) (finding that a parking lot owner had a duty to adequately secure the premises where the lot was located in a high crime area and the harm to the plaintiff was foreseeable). Thus, the first element of negligence is met.
The court finds that the harm to the plaintiff was foreseeable to the defendant. According to the plaintiff's testimony, some patrons were searched for contraband before entering the defendant's establishment. It is clear that the defendant anticipated the need to search patrons for weapons or other contraband. Thus, the defendant perceived the possible danger to invitees and it was foreseeable to the defendant that negligently carrying out security precautions could result in injury to an invitee. The plaintiff further testified that some patrons were not searched upon entering the bar, and that once granted admittance into the bar, one could leave and return without being checked for weapons. In not adequately searching those that entered the bar, the defendant breached its duty of care to the plaintiff.
The third element of negligence that the plaintiff must prove is legal cause. "As [our Supreme Court] observed . . . [l]egal cause is a hybrid construct, the result of balancing philosophic, pragmatic and moral approaches to causation. The first component of legal cause is causation in fact. Causation in fact is the purest legal application of . . . legal cause . . . The test for cause in fact is, simply, would the injury have occurred were it not for the actor's conduct . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dubreuil v. Witt, 80 Conn.App. 410, 428, 835 A.2d 477 (2003). "The second component of legal cause is proximate cause, which [our Supreme Court has] defined as [a]n actual cause that is a substantial factor in the resulting harm . . . The proximate cause requirement tempers the expansive view of causation [in fact] . . . by the pragmatic . . . shaping [of] rules which are feasible to administer, and yield a workable degree of certainty." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Barry v. Quality Steel Products, Inc., 263 Conn. 424, 441 n. 17, 820 A.2d 258 (2003).
The term "cause" means more than a mere incident in a chain of events. Plaintiffs have the burden of removing the relationship between defendant's conduct and each of their claims of injury from the realm of speculation. See Cote v. Colonial Penn Franklin Ins. Co., 88 Conn.App. 262, 267, 869 A.2d 266, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 917, 883 A.2d 1242 (2005). Plaintiffs do not satisfy their burden of proof by evidence that it was only "possible" that the defendant's conduct caused the alleged injury or damage.
The court has reviewed the police report and the medical reports. Both reports corroborate the plaintiff's version of events. The court finds the witness to be credible and reliable. The court further finds that this testimony along with a review of the evidence has established a causal link between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's injury.
The defendant's failure to adequately check patrons at the door allowed one of the patrons to enter the bar with a handgun discharging a bullet which injured the plaintiff. Consequently, the defendant's conduct was both the actual and proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. Lastly, the plaintiff has suffered harm, in the form of medical expenses and non-economic damages, as a result of the defendant's conduct. The plaintiff has met his burden of proving all four elements of negligence and accordingly, the court finds in favor of the plaintiff.
II DAMAGES
The fundamental rule regarding damages is that the amount awarded should be fair and reasonable compensation for losses suffered as a direct and proximate consequence of a party's negligence. Bruneau v. Seabrook, 84 Conn.App. 667, 673, 854 A.2d 818, cert. denied, 271 Conn. 930, 859 A.2d 583 (2004).
Here the plaintiff is claiming economic damages of $3,709.54. There is no claim of future lost wages. The plaintiff is also asking for non-economic damages, including loss of life's enjoyment in the amount of $52,000.
The plaintiff argues that his claim revolves around the pain he has suffered for the three-year time span since the accident. He also argues that he cannot engage in certain activities, that he once enjoyed, such as playing basketball. The plaintiff's life expectancy is 52.29 years.
The court finds the evidence presented by the plaintiff, regarding this issue, to be persuasive. Nevertheless, as the defendant is presently employed in good standing, loading goods for Kmart, the court is going to reduce his request for non-economic damages.
Thus, it is the judgment of the court that the plaintiff receive $3,709.54 in medical expenses and $25,000 in non-economic damages.