This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Torts
Premises Liability
Negligent Security, Wrongful Death

Judith Lefler, individually and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Jonathan Lefler-Panela, and Anthony Garcia-Panela, individually and as Successor in Interest to the Estate of Jonathan Lefler-Panela v. Sam Kholi Enterprises Inc. dba Sam's by the Sea

Published: Sep. 12, 2009 | Result Date: May 18, 2009 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 37-2007-00084817-CU-PO-CTL Settlement –  $495,000

Court

San Diego Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Thomas D. Penfield

Jeremy K. Robinson
(Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP)


Defendant

Patrick E. Herman

Thomas V. Clements


Experts

Plaintiff

Robert C. Smith
(Law Offices of Mary Catherine Wiederhold) (technical)

Defendant

Christopher E. McGoey
(technical)

Facts

On Jan. 8, 2006, Jonathan Lefler-Panela, a 25 year-old U.S. Navy veteran, visited Sam's by the Sea, a nightclub in Pacific Beach. Another patron at the club, Michael Sullivan, struck Lefler-Panela twice. Bouncers at the club intervened and ejected Lefler-Panela and Sullivan out separate exists. Outside the club on a public street a few minutes later, Sullivan renewed his attack on Lefler-Panela fatally stabbing him 17 times. The decedent's parents sued Sam Kholi Enterprises Inc., which operated as Sam's by the Sea, for negligently allowing the fight to carry on.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiffs argued that the bouncers should have known that the fight would keep going because Sullivan was a regular who had a known violent history. Plaintiffs contended that the club had a duty to protect its patrons within 100-feet of its establishment, per its entertainment permit issued by the San Diego Police, and municipal ordinances. Plaintiffs further argued that defendants should have had more qualified security on duty and that their conduct fell below the standard of care.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defense asserted that the attack did not occur on the bar's premises so there could not be premises liability, the continued attack was not foreseeable, and the bar hired enough bouncers. Also, defendant contended damages were minimal because the decedent was a 25-year-old, unemployed single male, who did not provide financial support to his divorced parents, and who lived hundreds of miles away in Northern California.

Injuries

The plaintiffs claimed death and loss of society.

Result

The parties reached a settlement amounting to $495,000.


#95358

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390