Summary
This New York Appellate Division decision reviews a trial court order denying defendants' motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action alleging negligent security and negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granting summary judgment to the defendants because they established prima facie that adequate security was present and the assault was not reasonably foreseeable, and that the security guards were acting within the scope of their employment. The plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to maintain reasonable security and whether that duty was breached.
- Whether the defendants are liable under theories of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision.
- Whether summary judgment was proper on the first, second, and fourth causes of action.
Holdings
- The court held that the defendants established a prima facie lack of foreseeability and therefore summary judgment dismissing the negligent security claim should have been granted.
- The court held that the defendants established a prima facie lack of triable issue and therefore summary judgment dismissing the negligent hiring, retention, and supervision claims should have been granted.
- The appellate court reversed the trial court and granted summary judgment dismissing those causes of action.
Key quotations
“The elements of negligence are (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach thereof, and (3) injury proximately resulting therefrom.”
“A possessor of real property is under a duty to maintain reasonable security measures to protect those lawfully on the premises from reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of third parties.”
“Under the theory of negligent hiring and retention, an employer may be liable for the acts of an employee acting outside the scope of his or her employment.”
Factual background
In September 2019 the plaintiff, Marc Campolongo, was assaulted outside the Brazen Fox bar by two unknown assailants. The bar owned security guards who were on duty at the time. The defendants argued that adequate security was provided and that the assault was not reasonably foreseeable.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs sued the bar owner and security guards for personal injuries sustained in September 2019. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action; the trial court denied those motions. The defendants appealed.