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.

Personal Injury (Non-Vehicular)
Premises Liability
Bar Altercation

Adam Stroud v. Dorothy Wallbridge dba Red Cove Bar, et al.

Published: Jul. 20, 2002 | Result Date: Jun. 27, 2002 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: CIV204193 Verdict –  $521,224

Judge

Steven E. Hintz

Court

Ventura Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Eric A. Woosley


Defendant

William S. Loomis


Experts

Plaintiff

R. Bruce Ramm
(technical)

Facts

The defendant was the sole owner of the Red Cove, a bar located in Ventura. There was a policy in place at the
time of the incident, June 23, 2000, whereby an assistant barback was to be present to assist the bartender with
security on Friday and Saturday nights. This policy was introduced as a result of the large crowds present on
Friday and Saturday evenings.
The usual bartender was on vacation on June 23, 2000 and a replacement bartender was engaged to fill in for
him. The usual barback/security individual did not report for work on the 23rd and the replacement bartender
was left alone to handle approximately 60 bar patrons.
The replacement bartender advised the defendant three or four times during the evening that the barback had
not shown up and the defendant told him that she would find a replacement or, failing that, would come down
to the bar herself. The bartender advised the defendant that he needed help.
Despite these repeated calls, the defendant stayed at home and did not go to the Red Cove.
Between 20 and 90 minutes prior to the plaintiff being shot, the replacement bartender advised the defendant
by telephone that the defendant's son had been involved in a fight at the bar. The fight was particularly violent.
After the fight the defendant's son left the bar by a rear door.
Upon hearing this, the defendant assured the bartender that she was leaving her house immediately to go
directly to the bar and that under no circumstances should the plaintiff contact the police.

Still, the defendant did not leave her house.
Sometime thereafter, the defendant's son walked back into the bar, through the same rear door from which he
had exited earlier, carrying a gun. He shot the plaintiff twice. The plaintiff had not been involved in the earlier
fight.
Upon learning that her son had been involved in a shooting incident, the defendant finally left her home and
went to the bar to help the plaintiff.

Settlement Discussions

Prior to trial, the defendnat offered the plaintiff $10,000 but this was rejected.

Specials in Evidence

$71,224 including loss of earnings.

Injuries

PLEASE ADVISE WHAT INJURIES THE PLAINTIFF SUFFERED.

Other Information

The total verdict ($521,224) was apportioned 35 percent as to the defendant owner and 65 percent as to the defendant shooter. The defendant brought unsuccessful Motions for Summary Judgment, for Nonsuit and for a Directed Verdict.

Deliberation

1.5 hours

Poll

10-2

Length

four days


#97762

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

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