In this particular case, Bradley Smith sued Del Lago Partners, Inc. and Del Lago Partners, L.P., for the injuries he sustained when a fight broke out among customers at the Grandstand Bar, which is part of the respondents’ resort. Smith obtained both a skull fracture and brain damage. He sued De Lago on the premises-liability platform. After nine days of hotly disputed evidence, I would say both Smith and De Lago won on a 49-51 percent liability apportionment. Reducing Smith’s damages by the amount of his own negligence, the court awarded him $1.48 million in damages (Phil & Omari, 2008). In deciding this, the court argued that De Lago did nothing for ninety minutes to remedy an unreasonably dangerous situation that resulted into the fracas, and this constituted a
…show more content…
In such as case, a property owner is charged with a responsibility of offering ordinary care to the invitee and eliminate any unreasonable risk of harm created by the condition of a premise, and about which the property owner was aware of or should have been aware of (Patrick, 2001). Though the court acknowledged that a premise owner does not have a responsibility to protect patrons from other patrons, it recognized the option where the owner might know or have a reason to know that the invitee was exposed to an unreasonable and foreseeable risk (Phil & Omari, 2008). In any case, the court argued, intoxication is associated with aggressive behavior. The Timberwalk decision semblance and applicability in this case was dismissed on ground that the evidence of past risk was not enough (Phil & Omari, 2008).Owing from the above, the court of appeal affirmed the case noting that the De Lago resort should have foreseen the risk of injury for the 90 minutes the tension had been growing and ultimately leading to a fight (Phil & Omari,
In such as case, a property owner is charged with a responsibility of offering ordinary care to the invitee and eliminate any unreasonable risk of harm created by the condition of a premise, and about which the property owner was aware of or should have been aware of (Patrick, 2001). Though the court acknowledged that a premise owner does not have a responsibility to protect patrons from other patrons, it recognized the option where the owner might know or have a reason to know that the invitee was exposed to an unreasonable and foreseeable risk (Phil & Omari, 2008). In any case, the court argued, intoxication is associated with aggressive behavior. The Timberwalk decision semblance and applicability in this case was dismissed on ground that the evidence of past risk was not enough (Phil & Omari, 2008).Owing from the above, the court of appeal affirmed the case noting that the De Lago resort should have foreseen the risk of injury for the 90 minutes the tension had been growing and ultimately leading to a fight (Phil & Omari,