Court Opinion

ID: 9581374
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:14:17.640385+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:54.023449
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
In affirming the grant of summary judgment for the appellee, the majority opinion concludes that the evidence was plain, palpable, and undisputable that the appellant’s injury was not reasonably foreseeable. I cannot concur with that assessment of the evidence.
Even as summarized by the majority opinion, there was sufficient evidence to authorize a finding that the appellee actually promoted the rowdy and illegal social environment in which the appellant was injured. What began as an event to raise money for “Christmas” lights ended in chaotic crisis conditions. On the afternoon before the evening when the appellant was injured, supervisors of the appellee offered marijuana to the band members at the club. Although no alcoholic beverages were sold on the premises, the evidence demonstrated the appellee’s open policy of “brown-bagging,” i.e., allowing patrons to bring and consume their own alcoholic beverage on the premises, despite his awareness that more than fifty percent of the patrons were minors. After the appellant was injured, in fact, one of the appellee’s employees had the band members announce over the loud speaker system that the police probably would appear and that everyone needed to conceal their alcoholic beverages. The appellee allowed the dancing and billiard playing on the premises, despite lacking the required licensing for either activity. Pornographic pictures of naked women were also permitted to be displayed on the premises.
If the evidence was plain, palpable, and undisputable as to any conclusion, it was that the appellee openly disdained to operate his club in a lawful or wholesome manner. Moreover, notwithstanding his awareness of rhythmic, raucous and rowdy behavior which manifested itself during these punk rock concerts, including donning a wolfs head mask and simulating “group head-banging,” the appellee, rather than taking measures to control it, actually promoted the setting for such. The articulate appellate advocate argues in his brief that the event was a type of attractive nuisance or a “pied piper” attempt to attract children. Compare Howell v. State, 172 Ga. App. 805, 808 (324 *442SE2d 754) (1984).
Decided March 19, 1987
Rehearing denied April 1, 1987
John H. Watson, for appellants.
Larry K. Evans, John W. Winborne III, Charles M. Lokey, for appellee.
Under these circumstances, it should be left to the jury to decide (1) whether it was reasonably foreseeable that someone could be injured as a result of the wild, rowdy and illegal atmosphere that was promoted and maintained by the appellee for the sake of profit; (2) whether an intervening causation (“York the Dork”) insulated the appellee from liability; and (3) whether the appellant assumed the risk of injury by participating in the raucous activity. Herren v. Abba Cab Co., 155 Ga. App. 443 (271 SE2d 11) (1980). Accordingly, I must respectfully dissent.
I am authorized to state that Judge Pope joins in this dissent.