Kuehn V. Pub Zone Case Study

Making decisions as a judge and as a jury can be difficult. Kuehn v. Pub Zone and Soldano v. O’Daniels both involve attacks in a bar, yet the cases are very different. In Kuehn v. Pub Zone, a gang that frequented the Pub Zone assaulted Kuehn, the plaintiff. The defendant, Kerkoulas, knew of the danger posed by the gangs, Pagans, and banned the use of “colors.” The Pub Zone failed to enforce their ban at the time of the attack. Kuehn then sued the Pub Zone stating that the bar had the duty to protect him from Pagan’s attack. In Soldano v. O’Daniels, the bar fight resulted in the death of Soldano’s father. When a fight broke out at Happy Jack’s Saloon, a bystander ran across the street to use the telephone of Circle Inn. Unfortunately, the bartender refused to let him use the phone and he was unable to call the police. Soldano, the plaintiff, sued O’Daniel’s,

Even so, they have the obligation to ensure that their business environment is free of hostility. The Pub Zone had the duty to protect Kuehn since Kerkoulas knew of the danger the Pagans posed to the customers. The Pub Zone failed to enforce the measures they had taken to prevent danger. The attack could have been avoided if the appropriate measures were taken, thus the Pub Zone is liable to Kuehn. Like the Pub Zone had the duty to protect Kuehn, the Circle Inn bartender had the duty to allow the use of the telephone. Although the bar fight had not taken place at the Circle Inn, it was a business open to the public, therefore the bartender should have allowed the call. Due to the emergency of the situation, the phone call was intended for the police. If the phone call was made to the police, it is possible that Soldano’s father would still be alive, thus O’Daniels is liable. In situations like these, businesses have the moral obligation to ensure the safety of their customers and the surrounding