Dix v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Certified for Publication (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Operators of large-scale electronic music festivals have a special relationship with their attendees, giving rise to a duty of reasonable care to protect against foreseeable harms, including those arising from illegal drug use and medical emergencies; a plaintiff’s voluntary engagement in risky activity does not negate this duty but is relevant to comparative fault.
Facts:
- Live Nation organized the two-day Hard Summer Music Festival at the Pomona Fairplex, anticipating 65,000 attendees daily, predominantly young adults.
- Live Nation's internal documents and prior experience indicated that illegal drug use, dehydration, and overdose reactions were a 'major risk' at such electronic music festivals.
- Live Nation implemented various safety measures, including security personnel for pat-down searches, drug-sniffing dogs, amnesty boxes for contraband, free water stations, shaded areas, and a comprehensive medical action plan with aid stations staffed by medical professionals.
- On August 1, 2015, 19-year-old Katie Dix attended Hard Fest, ingested illegal drugs (MDMA and Ethylone), and subsequently collapsed, becoming unconscious.
- When Katie collapsed, her friends sought assistance from security guards, who responded slowly, moved Katie without immediately providing aid, and delayed calling for medical assistance despite her friends stating Katie was 'blue' and not breathing.
- After medical personnel eventually arrived and began CPR, resuscitation efforts were halted in the ambulance before a supervisor intervened, but Katie died shortly after arriving at the hospital due to acute drug intoxication.
Procedural Posture:
- Mark and Pamela Dix (Plaintiffs) filed a second amended complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and related entities (Defendants), alleging causes of action including negligence, premises liability, and wrongful death, related to Katie Dix's death.
- Live Nation filed a motion for summary judgment, contending it did not owe a duty of care to Katie Dix or other festival attendees.
- The trial court (Judge Dan Thomas Oki) granted Live Nation's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Live Nation did not owe a duty to Katie Dix based on an analysis of the Rowland v. Christian factors.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of Live Nation.
- Mark and Pamela Dix (Plaintiffs and Appellants) appealed the judgment to the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an operator of an electronic music festival owe a duty of reasonable care to its attendees to provide adequate security and medical services when illegal drug use and subsequent medical emergencies are highly foreseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Dillon, J.
Yes, an operator of an electronic music festival like Live Nation owes a duty of reasonable care to its attendees. The court determined that a 'special relationship' exists between Live Nation and its 65,000 festival invitees, establishing a general duty of care. This relationship arises because attendees, once past security and inside the large, enclosed grounds for an extended period, are dependent on the operator for security and medical care, and the operator maintains superior control over the means of protection. Live Nation knew from its prior experience and internal safety overview that illegal drug use and 'possible overdose reactions' were a 'major risk,' making the harm highly foreseeable. The court distinguished Sakiyama v. AMF Bowling Centers, Inc., noting that in the present case, all incidents occurred within the grounds exclusively controlled by Live Nation, indicating 'ongoing direct involvement' unlike the remote accident in Sakiyama. Applying the Rowland v. Christian factors, the court found that public policy considerations — including high foreseeability, certainty of injury, close connection between conduct and injury, moral blame attached to negligent failure, the policy of preventing future harm, and the manageable burden on the defendant — did not justify creating an exception to this duty. The court clarified that Katie’s voluntary consumption of illegal drugs, while potentially relevant to comparative fault or causation, does not negate Live Nation’s initial duty of care, preserving the jury's role in apportioning responsibility.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of duty for large-scale event organizers in California, establishing that a 'special relationship' exists due to the attendees' dependency and the organizer's control, especially when known risks are foreseeable. It reinforces the principle that a plaintiff's comparative fault, such as voluntary drug use, does not extinguish a defendant's duty but rather serves to apportion liability. This ruling will likely compel event organizers to implement more robust and effectively executed safety and medical protocols, potentially leading to increased scrutiny of staffing, training, and emergency response plans at mass gatherings to mitigate liability.
