There continues to be many unknowns and risks associated with trying a case. Following the pandemic, jury temperament has changed, social inflation has occurred, and new trial strategies have emerged. Taking cases to trial continues to be a risky proposition. Despite these increased risks, Illinois Casualty Company (“ICC”) took multiple cases to trial in 2024. The results noted below exemplify ICC’s expertise in its niche.
Trial No. 1: Safe Parking Lots Can Become Dangerous When Drunk Patrons Get Loose
In Missouri, Plaintiff, a grandmother in her mid-sixties, claimed she was injured due to unsafe conditions in the parking lot of ICC’s insured, a small-town bar and restaurant. Plaintiff, who had a blood alcohol content of .187, fell off a six-foot drop at the edge of the parking lot when she was attempting to pour out an open container that was left in her vehicle. Just prior to the fall, Plaintiff and her companion were trying to figure out who was more sober before they got on the road.
Despite Plaintiff’s intoxication and poor decision to pour the wine cooler out in an area she was not familiar with, she blamed her fall on the fact that the area in which she fell was unmarked and poorly lit. Plaintiff presented witness testimonies and expert opinions to support her claims of inadequate lighting and building code violations.
As a result of her fall, Plaintiff sustained a laceration requiring seventeen stitches and claimed various other injuries, including atrial fibrillation and back pain, resulting in significant medical expenses and ongoing health issues. She sought approximately $1,000,000 in damages, supported by a life care plan from a retired trauma surgeon.
The defense, on behalf of ICC’s insured, argued that the parking lot was safe, noting the presence of wheel stops and the lack of prior incidents over thirty years. Additionally, the defense argued that Plaintiff’s intoxication and failure to exercise ordinary care contributed to her fall. The defense also challenged the extent and causation of Plaintiff’s claimed injuries, presenting expert testimony to refute the connection between the fall and her medical conditions.
The jury deliberated for two hours and ultimately found in favor of ICC’s insured, awarding 0% fault and $0 in damages. The jury was reportedly unsympathetic to Plaintiff due to her intoxication.
Although ICC’s insured escaped liability in this case, there can always be lessons learned from these situations. First, parking lots should always have sufficient lighting in all parts of the parking lot where patrons may be navigating. Second, if there are any sudden shifts in elevation in the parking lot or near the edge of the lot, such changes in elevation should be adequately marked and signs should be posted. Finally, it is recommended that the insured have surveillance cameras at every entrance and exit, as well as throughout the parking lot.
Trial No. 2: Diligent Supervision is Needed to Prevent Patrons from Dancing on Bar Tops
In Colorado, Plaintiff was injured when an unknown woman, Jane Doe, fell on her while she was climbing down from attempting to dance on the bar top. This caused Plaintiff to sustain a traumatic knee injury that required surgery and extensive treatment and resulted in $97,323 in medical expenses. In support of her claim, Plaintiff argued that ICC’s insured was at fault for encouraging bar dancing and failing to prevent such incidents, despite ICC’s insured claiming to have policies against it.
The defense, on behalf of ICC’s insured, argued that Jane Doe and Plaintiff, individually, were responsible for the incident. The defense also argued that Jane Doe was not permitted on the bar and that employees acted promptly to remove her. They also claimed that Plaintiff bore some fault for standing under and interacting with Jane Doe.
The jury deliberated for about four hours and found the liability to be 25% on Plaintiff, 60% on Jane Doe, and 15% on ICC’s insured. The jury awarded $155,723 in total damages, with ICC’s insured being responsible for $23,358 of the verdict, plus $7,247 in prejudgment interest. The jury awarded economic damages for medical bills but limited noneconomic damages and awarded no damages for physical impairment or disfigurement.
Although the insured was assessed some fault and damages, ICC considers this result to be a “technical win” because Plaintiff made a best and final demand of $300,000 before trial that ICC rejected.
Post-trial, the jury emphasized personal responsibility and believed the bartenders acted reasonably. They also noted that Plaintiff had resumed many activities, which influenced their decision on damages.
In hindsight, the jury may have rendered a complete defense verdict if the insured had made a few changes to the way that it conducted its business. First, since the prior owner allowed people to dance on the bar, ICC’s insured should have posted signage noting the prohibition of dancing on the bar. Second, by selectively allowing some performers and promoters on the bar, the insured likely created some confusion as to its position on patrons getting on top of the bar. Third, while the jury claimed the insured bartenders acted reasonably, as a best practice, the insured bartenders could have assisted the patron in her descent from being on top of the bar to ensure the safety of all patrons. Finally, the insured should have immediately preserved the surveillance video from the night of the incident, created an incident report, and collected the contact information of the involved parties and witnesses.
Trial No. 3: No Evidence of Noticeable Intoxication Can Pave the Way to Victory
In Ohio, Plaintiff was involved in a serious automobile accident caused by the AIP (“Allegedly Intoxicated Patron”), who turned left in front of him. It was alleged that the AIP had been drinking at ICC’s insured bar just prior to the accident. Plaintiff, who was not at fault, claimed extensive injuries that required multiple surgeries, including a fractured patella, arm, ribs, carpal tunnel syndrome, a closed head injury, concussion, and PTSD, with medical expenses of $1,298,250. In response, the defense argued that the true cost of medical care was $110,564 and that Plaintiff did not suffer any other damages.
Plaintiff’s case relied heavily on the testimony of a toxicologist who speculated that the AIP would have shown visible signs of intoxication based on the number of drinks purchased, despite no BAC being recorded. The AIP’s inconsistent testimony was also used to support Plaintiff’s claims.
The defense, on behalf of ICC’s insured, admitted that the AIP was a patron at the ICC insured establishment and had purchased twenty-five drinks over three hours. However, the AIP claimed that eight of these drinks were given to other patrons, and no one bought him any drinks. The defense also argued that most of the drinks were given away and that witnesses did not recall the AIP showing signs of intoxication. Additionally, trained police officers did not detect signs of intoxication until after extensively interviewing the AIP following the accident.
At the close of evidence, the jury deliberated for 50 minutes and returned a complete defense verdict for ICC’s insured, finding that Plaintiff did not prove the AIP was noticeably intoxicated at the time of service. Post-trial, jurors commented that the insured owner appeared polite and responsible. The jury also recognized that the AIP, who made the poor decision to drink and drive, was solely responsible for his actions.
The policies, procedures, and training utilized by the insured greatly assisted in this defense verdict. The insured utilized an incredibly detailed POS system that allowed the defense to assess the chronology of the drinking and provided information about the various bartenders that may have served the AIP that evening. Also, the insured’s bartenders were properly given alcohol service training, which allowed them to testify confidently that they did not serve the AIP while he was showing noticeable signs of intoxication.
This last year has shown us that juries are not afraid to use common sense when evaluating evidence and rendering a verdict. The longstanding belief in “personal responsibility” is still alive and well. Injured patrons are not free from scrutiny and must act reasonably when it comes to their own actions. Drunk drivers are held accountable by juries for their actions.
As shown by these outcomes, insureds with solid business operations that include reasonable policies and procedures that are followed, strong alcohol service training, and consistent record keeping, are often given the benefit of the doubt in close cases. Thankfully, as shown in these trial results, juries continue to believe that accidents can and do happen, and insureds cannot be expected to prevent every conceivable risk of harm to their patrons.
For more information about insuring your business with ICC, use our Find an Agent search and locate an agent in your area.
