Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.
Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw
Raylon Carmichael, et al. v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside, Inc., et al.
Date: 01-07-2025
Case Number: RIC1906133
Judge: Nocholas H. Van Parys
Court: Superior court, Riverside County, California
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Click Here For The Best Riverside Personal Injury Lawyer Directory
Defendant's Attorney: Ricahrd A. Higgins
Description:
Riverside, California personal injury lawyer represented the Plaintiffs who sued on negligence theories.
Plaintiffs were injured at a nightclub shooting that occurred during a rap concert featuring performers from rival gangs. Plaintiffs sued the defendants, the owner and operators of the nightclub, for negligence per se and strict liability on an ultrahazardous activity theory. Generally, plaintiffs claimed the defendants had failed to properly plan the event and to provide adequate security. The trial court granted defendants summary adjudication on the negligence per se claim and judgment on the pleadings on the ultrahazardous activity claim. Judgment was then entered in defendants' favor.
* * *
TORT LAW. NEGLIGENCE PER SE. The court addressed whether the defendants' alleged violation of a conditional use permit for nightclub operations constituted a sufficient basis for negligence per se, concluding that the permit was not intended to protect against the type of injuries suffered by the plaintiffs.
TORT LAW. STRICT LIABILITY FOR ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY. The court examined whether the operation of a nightclub hosting a rap concert with performers from rival gangs could be deemed an ultrahazardous activity, ultimately determining that proper planning and security could sufficiently mitigate such risks, and thus it did not meet the criteria for being ultrahazardous.
Key Phrases Negligence per se. Nightclub shooting. Ultrahazardous activity. Conditional use permit. Adequate security.
Plaintiffs were injured at a nightclub shooting that occurred during a rap concert featuring performers from rival gangs. Plaintiffs sued the defendants, the owner and operators of the nightclub, for negligence per se and strict liability on an ultrahazardous activity theory. Generally, plaintiffs claimed the defendants had failed to properly plan the event and to provide adequate security. The trial court granted defendants summary adjudication on the negligence per se claim and judgment on the pleadings on the ultrahazardous activity claim. Judgment was then entered in defendants' favor.
* * *
TORT LAW. NEGLIGENCE PER SE. The court addressed whether the defendants' alleged violation of a conditional use permit for nightclub operations constituted a sufficient basis for negligence per se, concluding that the permit was not intended to protect against the type of injuries suffered by the plaintiffs.
TORT LAW. STRICT LIABILITY FOR ULTRAHAZARDOUS ACTIVITY. The court examined whether the operation of a nightclub hosting a rap concert with performers from rival gangs could be deemed an ultrahazardous activity, ultimately determining that proper planning and security could sufficiently mitigate such risks, and thus it did not meet the criteria for being ultrahazardous.
Key Phrases Negligence per se. Nightclub shooting. Ultrahazardous activity. Conditional use permit. Adequate security.
Outcome:
Affirmed
Plaintiff's Experts:
Defendant's Experts:
Comments:
About This Case
What was the outcome of Raylon Carmichael, et al. v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside, I...?
The outcome was: Affirmed
Which court heard Raylon Carmichael, et al. v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside, I...?
This case was heard in Superior court, Riverside County, California, CA. The presiding judge was Nocholas H. Van Parys.
Who were the attorneys in Raylon Carmichael, et al. v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside, I...?
Plaintiff's attorney: Click Here For The Best Riverside Personal Injury Lawyer Directory. Defendant's attorney: Ricahrd A. Higgins.
When was Raylon Carmichael, et al. v. Cafe Sevilla of Riverside, I... decided?
This case was decided on January 7, 2025.