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
Assault and Battery

Cruzito H. Cruz v. J.J. O'Malley's Bar

Published: Dec. 30, 2006 | Result Date: Oct. 18, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 1166278 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Santa Barbara Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Luis Esparza


Defendant

Michael D. Margolin
(Law Offices of Gerald L. Marcus)

David K. Dorenfeld
(DorenfeldLaw Inc.)


Experts

Plaintiff

Clifford E. Dow
(technical)

Daniel R. Sullivan
(Sullivan Ballog & Williams LLP) (technical)

Defendant

R. Bruce Ramm
(technical)

Facts

According to the defendant, J.J. O'Malley's bar, plaintiff Cruzito H. Cruz lit a marijuana pipe in the back patio of the bar. Plaintiff asserted that he lit a tobacco pipe. Defendant's bouncer tried to stop plaintiff and a fight ensued. The bouncer used a martial arts leg-hold and chokehold on plaintiff for 15 minutes.

Contentions

CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff sued defendant. He alleged that the bouncer assaulted him and that the defendant was negligent in hiring the bouncer. Plaintiff claimed the bouncer had previously acted negligently under similar circumstances. He also made a premises liability claim due to the dangerous condition defendant created by hiring and training its bouncers. Plaintiff further claimed he was falsely imprisoned.

Settlement Discussions

According to defendant, plaintiff demanded $333,000 (CCP Section 998) and defendant's offer was $7,500.

Injuries

Plaintiff's injuries included a lost tooth, a burst blood vessel in the eye and lost consciousness.

Result

The jury returned a defense verdict. Plaintiff claimed the jury instructions resulted in de facto directed verdicts for defendant on the premises liability and negligence claims. Plaintiff will file motions challenging the jury instructions, evidentiary rulings and procedures. The verdict may able be appealed.

Deliberation

one day

Poll

For the defense - 9-3 (on assault); 10-2 (on negligence); 9-3 (that bouncer had the right to detain; for the plaintiff - 12-0 (on false imprisonment)

Length

four days


#95519

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

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