California Appellate Court Affirms Finding of No Liability for Assault Against Man Outside Ozzy Osbourne Concert

In a recent opinion issued by the California Court of Appeal, the court addressed whether a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit could meet his burden upon a summary judgment motion.  In this case, the court focused on the causation element of the plaintiff’s negligence claims.  The defendants’ alleged negligence must have directly caused the plaintiff’s resulting injuries. The court reviewed the plaintiff’s own admissions regarding the attack that took place, and it concluded that the plaintiff had not sufficiently met his burden to show a triable issue of fact, defeating the defendant’s summary judgment motion.James Maddalena was assaulted outside the San Manuel Amphitheater, where an “Ozzfest” music festival was going to take place.  On the day of the incident, Mr. Maddalena met his friend in a crowded picnic area near the VIP parking lot.  Mr. Maddalena’s friend identified a man who had an extra ticket, and Mr. Maddalena approached the man to inquire about the ticket.  The man said he would sell the ticket.  Mr. Maddalena turned toward his friend, and when he awoke the next morning, he was in the hospital, having suffered head injuries and lacking a recollection of what had happened. Mr. Maddalena had not met the man before, nor had there been a warning sign to suggest he would be attacked.  He later testified that the attack came out of the blue.

Mr. Maddalena filed a complaint against the performer, John Osbourne (Ozzy Osbourne), the promoter, Ozzfest Productions, LLC, and the entity that allegedly controlled or owned the area where the assault took place, Live Nation (collectively “defendants”).  Mr. Maddalena alleged two causes of action against the defendants.  In the portion labeled “Negligent Hiring, Supervision, Retention, and Responde[at] Superior,” the plaintiff alleged that the defendants knew or should have known that the security guards were incompetent or unfit and that this posed a risk of harm.  Despite this, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants negligently hired and supervised the security guards as employees.

The second cause of action was for negligent infliction of emotional distress and incorporated the allegations in the negligent supervision allegations, including that the defendants knew or should have known that the plaintiff would suffer anxiety, worry, and mental and physical emotional distress.

The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that Mr. Maddalena could not establish the required elements of duty, breach, and causation.  They produced Mr. Maddalena’s deposition testimony as well as a declaration from the general manager of the San Manuel Amphitheater.

Regarding the duty issue, the defendants stated that a business has a duty to take action to prevent third-party criminal conduct when that conduct is foreseeable.  On the causation element, the defendants argued that additional security could not have protected against the unprovoked assault, and there was no evidence to support a finding of causation between the alleged negligence and his damages.  According to the defendants, the unprovoked and random nature of the attack led to the only reasonable inference, which was that more security guards would not have prevented the attack.

The appellate court stated that to prove negligence, a plaintiff must demonstrate duty, breach, causation, and damages.  The lower court found that the defendants met their summary judgment burden to show that Mr. Maddalena could not establish causation, and Mr. Maddalena did not satisfy his burden to show a triable issue of fact on causation.

The appellate court rejected Mr. Maddalena’s challenge to the alleged procedural deficiencies of the trial court’s ruling.  He argued that he did not have notice that causation was a target of their motion.  The court stated that the defendants clearly argued Mr. Maddalena could not establish the causation element, based on his admissions regarding the unprovoked and random nature of the attack. The defendants, in their statement of undisputed facts, identified the specific facts supporting their argument that Mr. Maddalena’s claims of negligence did not cause his injuries.  Based on this record, the appellate court stated that Mr. Maddalena was on notice that the defendants moved for summary judgment on the ground that he did not possess evidence showing the causation element of his negligence cause of action.

On independent review, the court stated that they were also satisfied the lower court correctly granted the motion on the issue of causation. Here, an assault that took place in a location without security personnel, who might have prevented the assault, did not sufficiently establish the requisite causal relationship.  The defendants had met their burden of showing a lack of causation, based on Mr. Maddalena’s admission that the assault took place in a public place with witnesses and without reason.  The court stated there was no basis to find that even if Live Nation required security to cover the area, they would have prevented the attack.

Summary judgment was proper because the facts showed Mr. Maddalena could not prove the defendants’ alleged negligence was the cause of his injuries.  The court affirmed the lower court’s judgment.

At Sharifi Firm, our Southern California personal injury attorneys provide personal attention and efficient representation to injured individuals pursuing claims for compensation. We offer a no-obligation, free consultation and can be reached by calling 1-866-422-7222.

More Blog Posts:

California Court Holds Dodger Stadium Not Liable in Slip and Fall Case, Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog, April 11, 2016

California Appellate Court Upholds Judgment in Favor of Hotel Where Plaintiffs Injured by Independent Security Guards During Election Protested on Hotel Premises, Southern California Injury Lawyer Blog, March 18, 2016

Contact Information