March v. Steed Ents., Inc.
2013 Ohio 4448
Ohio Ct. App.2013Background
- Plaintiff William March was ejected from The Barn (a bar) on June 26, 2010 after allegedly using racial slurs; he was escorted out through a rear exit by two bouncers and later was struck in the bar’s parking lot by an unknown assailant (John Doe), suffering a broken leg.
- March sued the bar (Steed Enterprises, Inc.), its owners/managers, and the two bouncers for negligence, premises liability, negligent hiring/retention, assault/battery, respondeat superior, and spoliation of evidence.
- Defendants moved for summary judgment, submitting depositions; the trial court granted summary judgment for all defendants.
- March appealed, arguing genuine issues of material fact existed and that defendants had a duty to provide security or otherwise protect patrons as a matter of law.
- The appellate court reviewed summary judgment de novo, viewing the evidence in March’s favor, and focused on whether defendants owed a duty to protect March from the criminal act of a third party.
- The court found no evidence defendants knew or should have known of a substantial risk of harm (no prior similar incidents, no threats, both patrons were compliant when removed), concluded no duty arose, and affirmed summary judgment for defendants.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did defendants owe March a duty to protect him from a third party assault on the premises? | March: As a business invitee, he remained on defendants’ property and defendants had a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable third‑party criminal acts. | Defendants: No duty arose because they neither knew nor should have known of a substantial risk of assault; removal was routine and there were no indicia of imminent violence. | No duty; summary judgment affirmed. |
| Was March’s status as an invitee extinguished or changed by ejection/escort so as to affect duty? | March: His invitee status persisted because he remained on the property and ejection was arbitrary/inconsistent with policy. | Defendants: Even if status changed, there was no basis to impose a duty because no foreseeability of harm. | Court did not find a duty regardless of status; foreseeability dispositive. |
| Were defendants negligent in security (failure to escort to car or detain the other patron)? | March: Defendants negligently or intentionally placed him in danger by not escorting him to his car or holding John Doe until March left. | Defendants: Bouncers followed protocol (separate exits) and had no reason to anticipate assault; John Doe left scene before police arrived. | No negligence liability because no duty to prevent unforeseeable third‑party criminal act. |
| Was summary judgment improper because genuine issues of material fact exist? | March: Factual disputes (e.g., whether ejection complied with policy, foreseeability, who struck him) preclude summary judgment. | Defendants: Depositions show absence of evidence that defendants knew or should have known of risk; moving party met burden; March failed to produce specific contrary facts. | No genuine issue on duty/foreseeability; summary judgment appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Smiddy v. The Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (summary judgment standards and appellate review).
- Texler v. D.O. Summers Cleaners & Shirt Laundry Co., 81 Ohio St.3d 677 (Ohio 1998) (elements of negligence).
- Gladon v. Greater Cleveland Reg’l Transit Auth., 75 Ohio St.3d 312 (Ohio 1996) (invitee/licensee distinctions and landowner duty).
- Light v. Ohio Univ., 28 Ohio St.3d 66 (Ohio 1986) (definition of licensee).
- Gelbman v. Second Natl. Bank of Warren, 9 Ohio St.3d 77 (Ohio 1984) (duty to control third parties arises from special relationships).
- Commerce & Indus. Ins. Co. v. Toledo, 45 Ohio St.3d 96 (Ohio 1989) (special‑relationship duties).
- Simpson v. Big Bear Stores Co., 73 Ohio St.3d 130 (Ohio 1995) (business owner duty to invitees limited to known or knowable substantial risks).
- Menifee v. Ohio Welding Prods., Inc., 15 Ohio St.3d 75 (Ohio 1984) (foreseeability as factor in duty analysis).
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (moving party’s burden in summary judgment).
- Grafton v. Ohio Edison Co., 77 Ohio St.3d 102 (Ohio 1996) (de novo appellate review of summary judgment).