New York Bar Murder Case: The Tort and Liability Implications for Florida Employers and Landowners
As evidenced by the furor generated in New York City and nationally regarding the Imette St. Guillen rape and murder case, the focus of criminal and civil culpability will invariably move from the prime suspect to the establishment where he worked and where the victim apparently spent her last hours. Many victims’ rights advocates are openly questioning the hiring practices or lack thereof at “The Falls” who apparently hired the chief suspect, Darryl Littlejohn, as a bouncer, without conducting background check which would have revealed a substantial criminal background.
Whatever the disposition of the criminal matter, employers should pay heed to the potential civil liability that “The Falls” may very well be exposed to. While in a criminal case, the prosecution must prove it’s charges to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, the burden of proof in Florida and most jurisdictions on a civil matter is by a preponderance of the evidence. What that means in plain English is that all a civil plaintiff need prove is that it is more likely than not that the defendant was negligent and whose negligence caused the resulting damages.
In the St. Guillen case, her family could very well file a wrongful death case against The Falls claiming that their failure to do a criminal background check with regard to Mr. LittleJohn, resulted in their daughter, who was an apparent patron of the bar, and to whom the bar owed a duty to take all reasonable precautions to keep her safe from any known dangers or dangers that could be discovered upon reasonable investigation, being needlessly placed in a zone of danger. Again, but for a simple background check, the argument will go that Imette St. Guillen, a young, bright woman would in all likelihood have never encountered her killer on the night in question and it was the negligence of The Falls by opening it’s door of employm ent to a known felon, literally let a wolf loose on unsuspecting innocent souls who were at their establishment to have a drink, socialize and were unaware that danger was lurking in their midst.
The Guillen family could very well ask a court for a substantial amount of damages and might even be awarded punitive damages for the egregious negligence and carelessness of the bar. The lesson to all employers is clear, you have a duty to protect your customers, patrons a nd visitors to your places of business. They have a reasonable expectation of safety while on your premises. The failure to recognize this will sadly only lead to future tragedies like this one and potential financial catastrophe for the employers in question. Depending on the jurisdiction and make up of potential jury substantial money damages might be awarded in negligence cases such as these. Place close attention to the Guillen case as it unfolds and remember it’s outcome. The final verdict will be more a statement of what duty of care and responsibility we as a society expect from business owners than the fate of Ms. Guillen’s killer.
This case is a strong reminder of a case we handled several years ago where we represented the parents of a sixteen year old boy who had run afoul of the law and who had been placed in a youth shelter by the courts. The shelter failed to conduct criminal background on it’s counselors which would have uncovered convictions for sexual assault and battery. The child was subsequently severely beaten and assaulted repeatedly, slipped into coma, and was rushed to the hospital by paramedics, where he later died of his injuries. We filed a wrongful death lawsuit on behalf of the parents, demanding obvious substantial damages claiming that the negligence of the shelter in failing to screen it’s employees backgrounds was the direct and proximate cause of the death of their son. The shelter agreed to settle this matter at a court ordered mediation for $3,000,000.00 on the eve of trial.