Kimi Seymour, Individually and on Behalf of Her Daughter, Brittany Seymour v. House of Blues New Orleans Restaurant Corporation D/B/A the House of Blues New Orleans, and/or House of Blues Partnership Management Corporation D/B/A the House of Blues New Orleans, and/or House of Blues Music Forward Foundation D/B/A the House of Blues New Orleans, and/or Live Nation Corporation D/B/A the House of Blues New Orleans, and/or Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. D/B/A the House of Blues New Orleans, 309 So.3d 805

In June 2017 two groups of women fighting on a staircase as they exited the House of Blues New Orleans (HOB) were separated by on-site security; one group was ejected immediately and the other was detained about 20 minutes and then ejected.
After ejection the groups left the premises; they later re-engaged more than a block from HOB on Decatur Street, where Dannisha Green fatally stabbed Brittany Seymour.
Plaintiffs sued HOB for wrongful death and survival, alleging HOB had a duty to call police after the on-premises altercation and that failure to do so made the subsequent off-premises murder foreseeable and preventable.
HOB moved for summary judgment, arguing no duty to protect against third-party crimes (especially off-premises), no duty to call police under the facts, and that its security acted reasonably by separating and staggering ejections.
Trial court granted summary judgment for HOB; plaintiffs appealed and the Fourth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty to protect patrons from third-party criminal acts	HOB had a general duty to protect patrons and, upon a manifested disturbance, to call police	No general duty to protect against unforeseeable third-party crimes; only limited duty when crime is reasonably foreseeable	No duty extended to the unforeseeable off-premises criminal act; general rule: no liability for third-party crimes off premises
Duty to call police after on-premises disturbance	The stair fight manifested a disturbance and HOB had ~20 minutes to call police	Security intervened immediately and separated groups; HOB reasonably handled the on-premises disturbance	HOB satisfied duty on premises by intervening; no additional duty to call police was imposed by these facts
Foreseeability of off-premises attack (continuing duty after ejection)	Ejection combined with attempts to re-enter made off-premises violence foreseeable	HOB lacked knowledge of the feud or intent to commit crime; no indications of weapons or threats; staggering ejections was reasonable	Attack one block away was not reasonably foreseeable such that HOB had a continuing duty to protect former patrons off premises
Reasonableness of HOB’s security response	Plaintiffs argued HOB breached duty by not calling police	HOB separated groups, held one group ~20 minutes, staggered ejections, searched patrons at entry	HOB exercised reasonable care under the circumstances; summary judgment for HOB affirmed

Thompson v. Winn-Dixie Louisiana, Inc., 812 So.2d 829 (La. App. 4 Cir. 2002) (business generally not liable for off-premises criminal acts of third parties)
Harris v. Pizza Hut of Louisiana, Inc., 455 So.2d 1364 (La. 1984) (no general duty to protect against third-party criminal activity; liability arises only when duty assumed or crime is foreseeable)
Rodriguez v. New Orleans Public Service, Inc., 400 So.2d 884 (La. 1981) (intervention to separate assailant and victim can satisfy proprietor's duty)
Fredericks v. Daiquiris & Creams of Mandeville, L.L.C., 906 So.2d 636 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2005) (distinguishes when proprietor must call police: manifested disturbance or reasonably foreseeable danger)