LANCASTER – A Lancaster pub has denied that it failed to prevent an assault of a customer by other patrons this past April, an altercation that ended with a part of the plaintiff’s nose being bitten off.
William Rineer of Lancaster first filed suit in the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas on April 18 versus Marion Court Room, LLC (a.k.a. “Marion Court Room, Inc.” and “Marion Properties, LLC”, doing business as “Marion Court Room”) of Lancaster and DeSean Alston, of Stevens.
According to the suit, Rineer had drank two beers and smoked marijuana prior to arriving to the Marion Court Room alone on Friday, April 15 at approximately 11 p.m.
“To the best of his recollection, while at defendant Marion Court Bar, Rineer was served between 8-12 beers between 11 p.m. and approximately 12:40 a.m. At some point before he was last served, Rineer began to feel and exhibit the signs of visible intoxication. Despite this visible intoxication he was displaying, defendant Marion Court Bar continued to serve him alcohol. According to video footage, at approximately 11:22 p.m., defendant Alston entered defendant Marion Court Bar from the East Marion Street entrance/exit. According to video footage, defendant Alston entered with an unknown male individual,” the suit said.
“According to video footage, at or about 12:34 a.m. a young woman named Ileise (last name unknown) and a young woman accompanying her (name unknown but believed to be Ileise’s cousin) entered defendant Marion Court Bar via the East Marion Street entrance/exit. According to video footage, at approximately 12:36 a.m., defendant Alston and the two young women are seen walking towards the bar where Rineer was drinking. At approximately 12:42 a.m., Rineer was speaking to Ileise and/or her companion. Upon information and belief, at this point, defendant Alston had consumed an unknown quantity of alcohol. Upon information and belief, Defendant Alston’s actions, voice and mannerisms suggested that he was visibly intoxicated.”
The suit added that shortly after being served additional alcoholic beverages, defendant Alston allegedly attacked the plaintiff for the first of three times. At that point, Marion Court Room security ejected both men from the premises – propelling the plaintiff straight at the waiting Alston for a second physical altercation, the suit explained.
“The video footage shows that no less than three of defendant Marion Court Bar’s employee-security guards stood and watched defendant Alston re-engage and attack Rineer, while Rineer defended himself. Upon information and belief, defendant Marion Court Bar’s head of employee-security guards was one of the employees who was standing and watching the attack. During this same time, video footage shows the crowd inside the bar had moved to the Marion Street exit to watch the fight, some even running inside the bar to get a glimpse of the fight. The video footage shows that Rineer attempts to leave the scene from attack number two, and walk-up Marion Street towards the intersection with Marion Street and North Duke Street. The video footage shows that despite Rineer’s efforts to walk away, he is being followed by defendant Alston,” the suit stated.
“At about the same time on the video footage, one can see Marion Court Bar patrons leaving defendant Marion Court Bar’s premises and joining defendant Alston. Upon information and belief, these Marion Court Bar patrons were all able to observe the fight and recognized that they were friends with and/or aligned with defendant Alston. Defendant Alston and his company increase in number to about five or more as they follow Rineer up Marion Street towards Duke Street. Video footage shows defendant Alston yelling and angrily gesturing towards Rineer. In an effort to protect himself, Rineer maintained a wide distance between himself and defendant Alston, and the growing number of other patrons who were pouring out of the bar and joining defendant Alston.”
This led to an alleged third altercation, with Alston and three allies who had exited the Marion Court Room collectively assaulting Rineer.
“No less than four individuals are pictured in the video actively kicking and/or punching Rineer. All of these individuals were customers that came out of defendant Marion Court Bar. Despite his best efforts to protect himself again, Rineer, in his inebriated state, was no match for the number of attackers. Video footage shows Rineer on the pavement while being kicked and punched by several of defendant Marion Court Bar's customers and defendant Alston. The fight was effectively over once defendant Alston bit a significant portion of Rineer’s nose off. This injury left blood pouring from Rineer’s face,” the suit said.
“With Rineer being incapacitated and bleeding excessively, defendant Alston and the group from defendant Marion Court Bar fled the scene. At the very same time that Rineer was attacked by multiple Marion Court Bar customers approximately 180 feet away, the Marion Court Bar security-employees were pushing people out of the courtyard and towards the exit on Orange Street. Upon information and belief, the security-employees of defendant Marion Court Bar, were attempting to close for the day, as they were at the end of their shift. At no time did anyone from defendant Marion Court Bar render aid to Rineer in any of the three attacks. At no time did anyone from defendant Marion Court Bar call 911 to involve police or EMS for Rineer. At no time did anyone from defendant Marion Court Bar take any steps to reduce the likelihood of further violence in any of the three attacks.”
UPDATE
The defendants filed preliminary objections on June 6, in order to strike allegations of recklessness, a demand for punitive damages and allegations of violating state law statutes.
“Plaintiff fails to specifically set forth the basis of the allegations for recklessness as required pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019(a). A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and the intent of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. Pennsylvania law regarding the standard for reckless conduct requires that a plaintiff make a showing that goes beyond an allegation of negligence or even gross negligence,” per the defense’s objections.
“In this case, plaintiff’s specious allegations pertaining to the foreseeability that plaintiff would walk away for hundreds of feet following a 4-5 second engagement with defendant Alston immediately off the Marion Court Room premises and then turn around and re-engage with him 7 minutes after the previous encounter on public property, and that defendant Alston would bite the tip of his nose off which should have been foreseeable to defendant Marion Court Room. At most, plaintiff’s allegations assert that both he and defendant Alston may have been intoxicated when they engaged in a fight in the Marion Court Room facility and while outside on the public street adjacent to the premises; and, that they both consumed alcohol at the Marion Court Room bar prior to that event. Simply proving that an intoxicated person who consumed alcohol on the premises and injured another party is not sufficient to warrant an award of damages under the Dram Shop Act.”
The defense held that the plaintiff’s allegations stating Marion Court Room’s “failure to intervene after the second incident, which lasted a matter of seconds, constitutes ‘recklessness’ and therefore entitles him to punitive damages is inconsistent with Pennsylvania law”, and that “Pennsylvania courts have held that a business is not liable for injuries caused by the intentional acts of third parties that occur outside of its premises.”
For counts of negligence, carelessness and recklessness, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, compensatory damages and punitive damages in excess of applicable arbitration limits, together with interest, costs of suit and delay damages.
The plaintiff is represented by Wesley A. Addington of Katherman Briggs & Greenberg, in York.
The defendants are represented by Donald M. Desseyn of the Cincinnati Insurance Companies, in Mechanicsburg.
Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas case CI-23-02632
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com