B-T Two, Inc. v. Bennett
706 S.E.2d 87
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Bennett sued Buffalo's, doing business as Buffalo's Café, for injuries from an assault at a private party.
- The party occurred September 30, 2006 at a private residence in Laurens County; Buffalo's employees attended and some wore Buffalo's uniforms.
- Flyers advertising the party were posted at a Buffalo's restaurant in Laurens County and invited a $5 cover with unlimited beer via wristbands.
- Buffalo's did not own the residence, supply food or alcohol, nor receive revenues from the party, and no Buffalo's signs were placed at the location.
- Bennett alleges two theories: Buffalo's vicarious liability for an employee's assault under respondeat superior and Buffalo's own negligence for sponsoring the party with unlimited alcohol and inadequate security.
- Buffalo's moved for summary judgment; the trial court denied it, and the court of appeals granted review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Respondeat superior scope | Bennett: King assaulted Bennett within his employment duties. | Buffalo's: Assault was outside scope and not for Buffalo's business. | Buffalo's not liable; claim fails as a matter of law. |
| Negligence for serving alcohol | Bennett: Buffalo's negligence for serving unlimited alcohol at party. | Buffalo's: OCGA 51-1-40 bars third-party negligence claims arising from intoxication. | Claim foreclosed by statute; Buffalo's not liable. |
| Negligence for security duties | Bennett: Buffalo's owed a duty to provide security; had superior knowledge of danger. | Buffalo's: No knowledge or superior knowledge shown; no duty breach proven. | Summary judgment for Buffalo's on negligence; no superior knowledge shown. |
| Punitive damages | Bennett seeks punitive damages alongside compensatory damages. | Buffalo's: If no viable claim, punitive damages should be barred. | Punitive damages barred; no viable claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piedmont Hosp. v. Palladino, 276 Ga. 612 (Ga. 2003) (master liable only for torts within scope of employment and in furtherance of business)
- Dowdell v. Krystal Co., 291 Ga.App. 469 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (assault by employee post-incident; lack of scope for employer liability)
- Brownlee v. Winn-Dixie Atlanta, 240 Ga.App. 368 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999) (scope of employment test for respondeat superior)
- Leo v. Waffle House, 298 Ga.App. 838 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009) (summary judgment appropriate where servant not in scope of employment)
- Drury v. Harris Ventures, 302 Ga.App. 545 (Ga. Ct. App. 2010) (summary judgment when servant not engaged in master's business)
- Lau's Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (Ga. 1991) (duty of care not insurer of safety; criminal acts by third parties)
- Norby v. Heritage Bank, 284 Ga.App. 360 (Ga. Ct. App. 2007) (foreseeability and superior knowledge govern premises liability for third-party crimes)
- Wade v. Findlay Mgmt., 253 Ga.App. 688 (Ga. Ct. App. 2002) (criminal acts and foreseeability at a given location)
- Vega v. La Movida, Inc., 294 Ga.App. 311 (Ga. Ct. App. 2008) (premises liability and third-party criminal acts; foreseeability factors)
- Watson v. Worstell Parking v. Aisida, 212 Ga.App. 605 (Ga. Ct. App. 1994) (assault by a third party and premises liability context)