Merhi v. Becker
164 Conn. 516, 325 A.2d 270, 1973 Conn. LEXIS 952 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's negligence can be the proximate cause of an injury, even if the specific manner or extent of the harm was unforeseeable, as long as the harm that occurred was of the same general nature as the foreseeable risk created by the defendant's conduct.
Facts:
- On July 21, 1962, the International Union, Local 1010, sponsored an outdoor picnic for its members, including Ronald Merhi, who attended as a paying guest.
- The admission price entitled approximately 500 attendees to unlimited food and beer, and some guests also brought their own liquor.
- The union committee planned for three or four policemen but only hired one 60-year-old man who was not a regular police officer for security.
- During the picnic, an attendee named Richard Becker became heavily intoxicated and was involved in two separate physical altercations, including a 'brawl' with a member of the organizing committee which was witnessed by the union's treasurer.
- The union did not evict, restrain, or otherwise control Becker after these altercations.
- Approximately 30 minutes after the brawl, Becker got into his car, drove it into the picnic area aiming for the person he had fought, but instead struck and injured Merhi.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Merhi sued International Union, Local 1010, in a state trial court for personal injuries.
- The case was tried before a jury, which returned a verdict in favor of Merhi.
- Local 1010 filed a post-trial motion to set aside the verdict, which the trial court denied.
- Local 1010 (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, with Merhi as the appellee.
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 a picnic sponsor's negligent failure to provide adequate security constitute the proximate cause of injuries intentionally inflicted by an intoxicated guest when the specific manner of the attack was unforeseeable?
Opinions:
Majority - Bogdanski, J.
Yes. A picnic sponsor's negligent failure to provide adequate security constitutes the proximate cause of injuries intentionally inflicted by an intoxicated guest, even if the specific manner of the attack was unforeseeable. As the possessor of the premises, Local 1010 owed its invitees, including Merhi, a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them from anticipated dangers, including the conduct of third persons. The court found that the jury could have reasonably concluded that the union breached this duty by failing to provide adequate police protection and failing to control Becker after he had already engaged in violent behavior. The key to proximate cause is not the foreseeability of the specific manner of harm, but whether the harm was of the same general nature as the risk created by the defendant's negligence. Here, the union's failure to police a large, alcohol-fueled event created a foreseeable risk of injury from 'boisterous and angry occurrences.' Becker's intentional act of using his car as a weapon, while an intervening force, was an instance of the general kind of harm made foreseeable by the union's negligence and was therefore within the scope of that risk.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the 'scope of the risk' doctrine for determining proximate cause, particularly in premises liability cases involving third-party intentional acts. The decision establishes that a defendant's liability is not defeated simply because the exact method of injury was bizarre or unforeseeable. By focusing on the foreseeability of the 'general nature' of the harm rather than its specific mechanics, the ruling broadens the scope of liability for property owners and event sponsors. This precedent makes it easier for plaintiffs to establish proximate cause when they are injured by the foreseeable consequences of a negligently managed environment, even if those consequences manifest in an unusual way.
Unlock the full brief for Merhi v. Becker