Whitfield v. Tequila Mexican Restaurant No. 1, Inc.
323 Ga. App. 801
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On Sept. 12, 2010 Whitfield was dining at Tequila Mexican Restaurant when another patron, Aydelotte, was observed drunk, belligerent, and harassing customers; staff and other patrons complained.
- Tequila moved Whitfield’s party and, after complaints, its acting manager asked Aydelotte to leave; Aydelotte refused to pay, left, and later stabbed Whitfield after Whitfield confronted him outside.
- Whitfield sued Aydelotte and Tequila asserting premises liability, negligent hiring/supervision, failure to provide adequate security, gross negligence, and sought punitive damages.
- Discovery revealed Aydelotte’s electronic ticket had been deleted the night of the incident; Whitfield moved for spoliation sanctions claiming the ticket would show how long/how much was served.
- The trial court denied spoliation sanctions and granted summary judgment to Tequila on all claims; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Premises liability / foreseeability of third‑party criminal act | Tequila knew Aydelotte was intoxicated and harassing customers and thus should have foreseen violence | No evidence of prior similar crimes at the restaurant nor prior violent incidents involving Aydelotte to make assault foreseeable | Affirmed for Tequila — assault was not reasonably foreseeable and plaintiff failed to show proprietor’s superior knowledge of a propensity for violence |
| Failure to provide adequate security | Tequila should have provided security or taken additional measures after complaints | Tequila moved the party, asked Aydelotte to leave, and had no notice of violent propensities or similar past incidents | Affirmed for Tequila — no duty breached because no foreseeable risk shown |
| Negligent hiring/supervision | Employees failed to call police per training; hiring/supervision made injury foreseeable | No allegation employees caused the injury; no evidence they knew employee (Aydelotte was a patron, not employee) was unfit or dangerous | Affirmed for Tequila — causation and notice/knowledge elements not met |
| Gross negligence & punitive damages | Continuing to serve alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person and not calling police constituted gross negligence warranting punitive damages | Conduct did not fall below the slight‑care threshold; Tequila acted (moved party, asked patron to leave) and incident occurred after patron left | Affirmed for Tequila — facts insufficient for gross negligence; punitive damages fail as underlying claims fail |
| Spoliation (deletion of electronic ticket) | Deletion of ticket after incident deprived Whitfield of evidence showing amount/time of service and supports sanctions | Ticket deletion was routine practice for walkouts; restaurant had no notice of contemplated civil litigation at time of deletion | Affirmed for Tequila — trial court did not abuse discretion; no duty to preserve because no notice of impending civil litigation |
Key Cases Cited
- Snellgrove v. Hyatt Corp., 277 Ga. App. 119 (Ga. Ct. App.) (proprietor not liable for third‑party crimes unless reasonably foreseeable)
- Sturbridge Partners, Ltd. v. Walker, 267 Ga. 785 (Ga. 1997) (duty to protect against third‑party criminal acts extends only to foreseeable acts)
- Lau’s Corp. v. Haskins, 261 Ga. 491 (Ga. 1991) (proprietor has duty to guard against injury when proprietor can anticipate criminal act)
- B‑T Two, Inc. v. Bennett, 307 Ga. App. 649 (Ga. Ct. App.) (discussion of foreseeability and proprietor’s superior knowledge in bar/restaurant context)
- Vega v. La Movida, Inc., 294 Ga. App. 311 (Ga. Ct. App.) (proprietor’s superior knowledge must relate to condition creating unreasonable risk — propensity to violence, not merely intoxication)
- Silman v. Associates Bellemeade, 286 Ga. 27 (Ga. 2009) (duty to preserve evidence not triggered merely by notice of an injury)
- Clayton County v. Austin‑Powell, 321 Ga. App. 12 (Ga. Ct. App.) (trial court has wide discretion on spoliation and preservation duty requires notice of contemplated litigation)