Martinez v. Amerigreen, 34 Neb. App. 347

Jason Martinez was injured on New Year’s Eve 2014 after a confrontation on The Hive Bar’s dance floor, when a patron threw a glass that hit his face and shattered. 1
Martinez sued Amerigreen, LLC, alleging negligence based on unsafe conditions, inadequate security, overcrowding, unsafe glassware, and failure to prevent injury. 2
Amerigreen moved for summary judgment, asserting there was no evidence of liability, overcrowding, or inadequate security, and that the patrons’ conduct was not foreseeable. 3
The district court granted summary judgment, finding Amerigreen’s alleged negligence merely created a condition and that the patrons’ intentional acts were not reasonably foreseeable. 4
On appeal, Martinez focused mainly on whether overcrowding made the assault foreseeable and argued factual disputes existed for the jury. 5
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the attack was not foreseeable as a matter of law and that overcrowding did not create premises liability. 6

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Martinez plead a premises-liability overcrowding claim? 7	Martinez said overcrowding created a dangerous condition causing his injuries.	Amerigreen said the pleadings alleged only general negligence or third-party harm.	The court treated the case mainly as negligence, but analyzed overcrowding under both frameworks. 8
Was the patrons’ assault reasonably foreseeable from overcrowding? 9	Martinez argued New Year’s Eve overcrowding and drinking made violence foreseeable.	Amerigreen argued no prior violence or evidence linked overcrowding to the attack.	No; the assault was not foreseeable as a matter of law. 10
Did overcrowding create premises liability for a dangerous condition? 11	Martinez claimed Amerigreen created a dangerous overcrowded condition.	Amerigreen argued overcrowding was open and obvious and not an unreasonable risk.	No; overcrowding was open and obvious, so no duty arose. 12
Did the court need to decide causation? 13	Martinez argued Amerigreen’s negligence proximately caused his injuries.	Amerigreen argued any negligence only created a condition, not the cause.	No; lack of foreseeability resolved the appeal. 14

Strahan v. McCook Hotel Group, 317 Neb. 350, 10 N.W.3d 187 (Neb. 2024) (summary judgment standard 15)
Sundermann v. Hy-Vee, 306 Neb. 749, 947 N.W.2d 492 (Neb. 2020) (negligence and premises-liability principles; open and obvious danger 16)
Hodson v. Taylor, 290 Neb. 348, 860 N.W.2d 162 (Neb. 2015) (not every negligence action on land is premises liability 17)
Clark v. Scheels All Sports, 314 Neb. 49, 989 N.W.2d 39 (Neb. 2023) (pleadings frame summary-judgment issues 18)
A.W. v. Lancaster County School District 0001, 280 Neb. 205, 784 N.W.2d 907 (Neb. 2010) (foreseeability is usually for the fact finder but can be decided as a matter of law 19)
Pittman v. Rivera, 293 Neb. 569, 879 N.W.2d 12 (Neb. 2016) (risk of attack must have a direct relationship to the harm incurred 20)
Hughes v. Coniglio, 147 Neb. 829, 25 N.W.2d 405 (Neb. 1946) (proprietor’s duty to protect patrons from third-party harm 21)