Troxel v. Iguana Cantina, LLC
201 Md. App. 476
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2011Background
- Troxel, the plaintiff, sued Iguana Cantina, LLC, its manager Bennett, landlord Lockwood Associates, LLC, Parkway Corporation, and Parkway executives for injuries from a beating on Iguana Cantina premises in Baltimore City on Sept. 25-26, 2008.
- Troxel alleged the club maintained extremely dangerous conditions and failed to provide security or control patrons, breaching a duty to invitees.
- Iguana Cantina ran a college night promo (18–21) with 12-dollar entry, red/clear cups, and alcohol access for older patrons, creating a mixed-age crowd.
- There was a history of violence at Iguana Cantina, including 2005 liquor-board violations for under-21 alcohol sales, escalated violence in 2008, and security staff testimony about frequent fights on college nights.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment on both dram shop and negligence theories; Troxel appealed.
- The appellate court vacated and remanded, holding the claim is premises liability (not classic dram shop) and that Troxel presented triable facts on duty, breach, and causation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premises liability or dram shop—which theory governs Troxel’s claim? | Troxel’s claim is premises liability for failure to protect patrons from third-party violence. | Iguana Cantina argues the claim is dram shop or, if premises-based, lacks duty, breach, and causation evidence. | Premises liability analysis governs; dram shop liability does not apply. |
| Duty owed to Troxel—did Iguana Cantina owe a duty to protect from foreseeable third-party violence? | Existing evidence of prior violence creates foreseeability and duty to take precautionary measures. | No prior incidents or foreseeability established a duty; no duty, no breach. | Court finds a triable duty based on history of violence and Corinaldi-derived theories. |
| Breach and causation—did Iguana Cantina breach its duty and cause Troxel’s injuries? | Security failures and college-night promotion increased risk; expert supports breach. | No breach proven; injury caused by unknown assailants; not the club’s conduct. | Triable questions on breach and causation; summary judgment inappropriate. |
| Admissibility of documents showing prior incidents—can they be considered on appeal? | Court treats record as admissible for remand purposes; consideration of documents allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Scott v. Watson, 278 Md. 160 (Md. 1976) (landlord duty when criminal activity known or foreseen in common areas)
- Hemmings v. Pelham Wood Ltd. Liab. Ltd. P'ship, 375 Md. 522 (Md. 2003) (premises liability duty to protect patrons from foreseeable harm)
- Corinaldi v. Columbia Courtyard, Inc., 162 Md.App. 207 (Md. 2005) (describes Corinaldi theories of landlord duty to prevent criminal activity on premises)
- Moore v. Jimel, Inc., 147 Md.App. 336 (Md. 2002) (no foreseeability of risk where no prior incidents; duty depends on prior violence)
- Pittway Corp. v. Collins, 409 Md. 218 (Md. 2009) (causation-in-fact and foreseeability in premises liability)
- Griffith v. Southland Corp., 94 Md.App. 242 (Md. 1992) (foreseeability and duty to protect against risks on premises; proximate cause questions for jury)
- Merhi v. Becker, 164 Conn. 516 (Conn. 1973) (Restatement-based foreseeability and scope of risk in premises-related injury)
- Loomis v. Granny's Rocker Nite Club, 250 Ill.App.3d 753 (Ill.App. 1993) (duty to provide adequate security for foreseeable violence on premises)
- Hall v. Billy Jack's, Inc., 458 So.2d 760 (Fla. 1984) (tavern owner’s duty to protect against reasonably foreseeable violence on premises)
- DiOssi v. Maroney, 548 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1988) (recognizes premises-based liability for injuries linked to liquor service context)