Court Opinion

ID: 9378426
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-10 15:04:43.951889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:21.092551
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: MARCH 3, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                        NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                 Commonwealth of Kentucky
                           Court of Appeals

                              NO. 2021-CA-1424-MR

ALAN ELSTUN                                                             APPELLANT

                 APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT
v.             HONORABLE GREGORY M. BARTLETT, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 20-CI-00886

SADDLE CLUB, LLC                                                          APPELLEE

                                     OPINION
                                    AFFIRMING

                                   ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: CALDWELL, CETRULO, AND COMBS, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: We placed this case in abeyance pending the outcome of a

highly relevant case pending before the Supreme Court of Kentucky: Wal-Mart,

Inc. v. Reeves, ___ S.W.3d ___, 2023 WL 2033691 (Ky. Feb. 16, 2023). The

Walmart case has been decided, holding that Kentucky shall not expand the duty of

reasonable care in premises liability cases to impose liability on the part of

business owners for third parties’ criminal acts that were not reasonably
foreseeable. After our review of the Walmart case, we have taken our case out of

abeyance and revisited our opinion. We are satisfied that our holding comports

with the precedent just enunciated by our Supreme Court.

            The case currently before us involves a claim of negligent security

resulting in an injury to a patron of a business. Alan Elstun (Appellant) appeals the

partial summary judgment of the Kenton Circuit Court entered in favor of Saddle

Club, LLC (Appellee). He argues that the circuit court erred by concluding that

Saddle Club had no duty to protect him from an assault perpetrated by a fellow

patron. Because Elstun failed to present evidence to indicate that Saddle Club

breached a duty to protect him from the criminal acts of another, we affirm.

             Late in the evening of July 13, 2019, Elstun entered Saddle Club, a

small bar in Ft. Mitchell. He was accompanied by two friends, Michael Gregory

and Scott Lewin. Kenneth Hollenkamp arrived minutes later to join his girlfriend

who was seated near Elstun and his friends. Gregory testified in his deposition that

Hollenkamp seemed agitated when he arrived. Elstun testified that Hollenkamp

began what looked like a “heated discussion” with Lewin as soon as he saw Lewin

at the bar; however, Elstun did not overhear their conversation.

             In his deposition, Hollenkamp explained that Lewin was very

intoxicated. After listening to Lewin call him names for several minutes,

Hollenkamp stood up and asked him, “What is your f-in problem?” He stated that

                                         -2-
the scene “took everybody’s attention.” According to Elstun, when Hollenkamp

stepped away from the bar to talk with his girlfriend, Lewin exited Saddle Club.

             Elstun testified that Hollenkamp and his girlfriend then returned to the

bar, and she took a seat. Elstun indicated that Hollenkamp expressed his intention

to assault Lewin, asking where Lewin had gone. Elstun told Hollenkamp that he

thought Lewin was outside. He stated that Hollenkamp began a conversation with

a female patron standing nearby. Then Hollenkamp suddenly approached Elstun

and immediately struck him: “I just saw him start to come at me. . . .”

Hollenkamp punched Elstun twice. Gregory confirmed that “it was all pretty quick

right after that . . . all of a sudden, I could feel them scuffling behind me.” Gregory

explained that the bar was not loud and that the men had not shouted at each other.

He could not tell whether anyone else -- including the bartender who was standing

behind the bar -- overheard any interaction between them before the assault.

Gregory reiterated, “[i]t happened really fast.” He remembered that there were at

least two bartenders on duty.

             Danielle Sheehan, a Saddle Club bartender working that evening,

testified in her deposition that she was trained to handle unruly and belligerent

patrons and that she was aware of Saddle Club’s “de-escalation processes,”

including ejection of any patron at her discretion. She indicated that the bar did

not hire bouncers on a regular basis given “the general nature of the clientele” and

                                          -3-
because “we don’t have the crowd capacity” to warrant that kind of assistance.

She felt comfortable calling the police if patrons become aggressive. Sheehan

testified that there was only a “small crowd” at the bar on this evening and that the

patrons “seemed like a happy-go-lucky group of people that were coming from a

party.” She did not hear any conversation between Elstun and Hollenkamp. She

indicated that by the time she realized that anyone had been assaulted, “they were

in the back parking lot.” She did not call police.

             Allison Halpin was also working as a bartender at Saddle Club on that

evening. Halpin testified that she, too, was familiar with the bar’s policies and

procedures concerning unruly patrons. She indicated that although the bar was

typically staffed with just two female bartenders, she never felt unsafe there.

Halpin explained that she became aware of a commotion that night only when she

saw a group of people “pulling each other off of other people.” She explained that

“it kind of dispersed very quickly.” She indicated that no interaction among the

patrons before that moment had given her any cause for concern. She explained

that she had been “[r]ight across the bar” from “the commotion” and had not

noticed any aggressive behavior before the assault.

             On June 30, 2020, Elstun filed a complaint against Hollenkamp and

Saddle Club. He alleged that Saddle Club failed to provide adequate security to

protect his wellbeing. Following a period of discovery, Saddle Club filed a motion

                                         -4-
for partial summary judgment. It argued that Elstun could not establish a prima

facie case of negligence against Saddle Club because Hollenkamp’s conduct was

not reasonably foreseeable. In response, Elstun argued that genuine issues of

material fact existed regarding the foreseeability of the assault. He contended that

Saddle Club’s breach of its duty to protect him caused him to suffer serious and

lasting physical injury.

                In an order entered October 29, 2021, the circuit court granted Saddle

Club’s motion for partial summary judgment. It concluded that Hollenkamp’s

assault of Elstun “was not foreseeable, and thus the Saddle Club had no duty to

prevent that occurrence.” Elstun’s motion to alter, amend, or vacate was denied.

This appeal followed.

                Summary judgment is properly granted where “the pleadings,

depositions, answers to interrogatories, stipulations, and admissions on file,

together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any

material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of

law.” CR1 56.03. Because summary judgment involves only questions of law and

not the resolution of disputed material facts, we do not defer to the trial court’s

decision. Goldsmith v. Allied Building Components, Inc., 833 S.W.2d 378 (Ky.

1
    Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

                                           -5-
1992). Instead, we review the decision de novo. Cumberland Valley Contrs., Inc.

v. Bell County Coal Corp., 238 S.W.3d 644 (Ky. 2007).

             On appeal, Elstun contends that the trial court erred by concluding as

a matter of law that Saddle Club owed no duty of care to Elstun because the assault

perpetrated against him was not foreseeable. He argues that genuine issues of

material fact exist regarding the foreseeability of his injuries sufficient to preclude

summary judgment. Saddle Club argues that it was entitled to summary judgment

because Elstun presented no evidence to indicate that Hollenkamp’s criminal

assault was foreseeable.

              To recover under a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must establish that

the defendant owed a duty of care to him; that the defendant breached that duty of

care; and that the breach proximately caused the plaintiff’s damages. Lee v.

Farmer’s Rural Elec. Coop. Corp., 245 S.W.3d 209 (Ky. App. 2007) (citations

omitted). A business owner has a duty to its patrons to exercise reasonable care to

protect them; it breaches that duty where it fails to protect them from the

reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of fellow patrons. Napper v. Kenwood Drive-

In Theatre Co., 310 S.W.2d 270 (Ky. 1958); Murphy v. Second Street Corp., 48

S.W.3d 571 (Ky. App. 2001). Whether the defendant breached its duty of

reasonable care is generally a question of fact for a jury. See Sidebottom v.

Aubrey, 267 Ky. 45, 101 S.W.2d 212 (1937). However, where the risk of danger is

                                          -6-
clearly unforeseeable and reasonable people could not differ as to the extent of the

foreseeable risk at the time of the alleged negligence, the court is authorized to

grant summary judgment. Shelton v. Kentucky Easter Seals Society, Inc., 413

S.W.3d 901 (Ky. 2013).

             Because he was a patron of the bar, Saddle Club had a duty to protect

Elstun from foreseeable criminal activity. And, although foreseeability is

ordinarily a fact-intensive issue, there is no question in this case that the criminal

assault perpetrated by Hollenkamp was not foreseeable.

             The undisputed evidence of record presented to the trial court

indicated that Saddle Club was neither loud nor over-crowded. No evidence

indicated that Hollenkamp had been overserved by Saddle Club’s bartenders, nor

was he known to them to be violent. Furthermore, no evidence indicated that any

employee was aware -- or should have been aware -- of an aggressive interaction

between Hollenkamp and Elstun before Elstun was struck. In summary, nothing

about Hollenkamp’s conduct during the few minutes that he was in the bar would

have led a reasonably prudent person to believe that he might injure another

patron. Instead, the evidence indicated that no one had reason to believe that

Hollenkamp would or was about to assault Elstun.

             The court correctly found that there was no evidence to indicate that

Saddle Club breached its duty of care by failing to protect Elstun from the

                                          -7-
reasonably foreseeable criminal acts of a fellow patron. In the absence of any

genuine issue of material fact, the trial court did not err by concluding that Saddle

Club was entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.

            Therefore, we affirm.

             ALL CONCUR.

 BRIEF FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

 W. Kash Stilz, Jr.                        Gerald R. Toner
 Covington, Kentucky                       Louisville, Kentucky

                                           Caroline K. Bruenderman
                                           Louisville, Kentucky

                                         -8-