Kuehn V. Pub Zone Summary

Though the Kuehn v. Pub Zone and Soldano v. O’Daniels cases both involve attacks in a bar, one case rules in favor of the injured plaintiff and the other in favor of the owner-defendant. These rulings may initially seem contradictory, however, once the stories and the environments surrounding the attacks become clear, it becomes more obvious that one of the establishments holds more of a responsibility when it comes to the safety of their patrons. In the case of Kuehn v. Pub Zone, customer, Karl Kuehn, was assaulted in the bathroom of an establishment known to be frequented by a violent biker gang. The biker gang and its violent outbursts had become such a regular occurrence that a sign was even posted prohibiting entrance to the bar while wearing gang colors. On the day of Mr. Kuehn’s assault, members of the biker gang, wearing their gang colors, pushed passed the bouncer and entered the Pub Zone. Instead of calling the police or refusing service, the bartender decided to serve the group a drink, not only failing to enforce the Pub Zone’s own established rule, but also acting against it. This places the Pub Zone at fault for

O’Daniels also involves an attack and a barkeeper, yet in this case the barkeeper is not responsible for the safety of the plaintiff. Mr. Soldano’s father was involved in a fight at Happy Jack’s Saloon, when a good Samaritan ran across the street to use the phone at the Circle Inn to report the altercation to police, the barkeeper would not allow the use of his phone. The fight escalated and Mr. Soldano’s father was shot, as the owner of the Circle Inn, O’Daniels was held responsible for the death by Mr. Soldano, as the phone call may have saved his life. O’Daniels is absolved of responsibility in this case since the Circle Inn was in no way responsible for creating the dangerous environment leading to the death of Soldano’s father, unlike the Kuehn case, in which a known danger was allowed into the