This just in…in a lawsuit filed on behalf of two victims of the West Warwick, RI nightclub fire, lawyers named Anhauser-Busch, its Rhode Island Distributor, and a local radio station as defendants .
Now, I can understand the “deep pockets” theory of lawsuits…but can some lawyer on the board please explain to me how a brewer can be responsible for a nightclub fire?
From what I hear, Budweiser beer was a partial sponsor of the concert series, that included the band Great White at the doomed nightclub in West Warwick. How on earth could the beer mfg. be aware that:
-the owners of the nightclub had afiretrap, equipped with flammable foam insulation, fire code violations, and overcrowded conditions
-inebriated patrons would hang around WHILE THE STAGE WENT UP IN FLAMES!
-the W. Warwick FD did nothing about numerous code violations at the club.
So, tell me…does this lawsuit have any chance of sticking? Or will Budweiser spend money defending itself from this bizarre charge?:smack:
Hum. I can’t really say without looking at the pleadings, but the first thing to come to mind is some sort of vicarious liability claim. In a partnership or joint venture, each member is liable for the tortious conduct of the others committed in the course and scope of the venture. That’s probably what will be the claim here. Another kind of vicarious liability claim is that of respondeat superior, where an employer is held liable for the tortious acts of an employee committed in the course and scope of employment. The plaintiffs have probably alleged a dozen or so instances of each of these, expecting a few to get shot down outright.
So, they might have been sponsoring a band that they knew or should have known was setting off fireworks in bars. Then, this band managed to light one of those nightclubs on fire. We’d need to see the pleadings to know whether it would stick, but if they sponsored the band and concert series, it isn’t unreasonable to suggest they have some reponsibility.
This is what’s known as going after the “deep pockets.” Since neither the band members or the nightclub owner have any money or substantial assets, the victims sue a large corporation with some minor connection to the incident, in the hopes that they will settle out of court to avoid the hassle of a trial.
The concert promoter (Anheuser-Busch) may also be directly at fault if their representative allowed, encouraged, or pressured the band to go on with the fireworks even after being informed that there was no permit. If it’s found that the promoter had a duty to determine the permit situation, even failing to check could be negligence on their part.
So why don’t the victims of the fire band together and push one class-action lawsuit? Wouldn’t thisbe more efficient than filing 150+ individual lawsuits? If there is any chance of recovery, surely it is better to go after Anheuser-Busch …they have plenty of money.
My guess is that the owners of the nightclub probably have no significant assets,neither does the Town of W. Warwick. Still, 150 lawsuits ought to keep quite a few lawyers busy, for a number of years!
The Town of Warwick can’t be sued on a negligence claim like this unless state law waives sovereign immunity. That may be the case, I don’t know RI state law. You’re probably right about the nightclub.
A class action suit generally has to involve four factors: a class so large that individual suits would be impracticable, legal or factual questions in common, a representative whose claims are typical of the class, and a representative who will adequately protect the interests of the class. My personal knowledge of class action suits is limited to book larnin’, but it sounds like all those factors are present. The individual suits may eventually be consolidated.
Also: sometimes you have to name a party who doesn’t have any significant money, like the nightclub may not, to get to a party that does, like Anheuser-Busch. You have to demonstrate the negligence of the judgment-proof party to get at the one you can actually get damages from.
While Anheuser-Busch was named as a defendant in the lawsuit, they were not an actual sponsor of the concert. The local beer distributor, McLaughlin and Moran, sponsored the event. McLaughlin and Moran is the exclusive distributor of Anheuser-Busch products in Rhode Island.
You can see the article I pulled this from at http://metal-sludge.com/SludgeWire3-11-03.htm. It’s the second item on the page.
IANAL, but if the beer distributor has the right to use A-B’s name I would think that A-B could be held somewhat responsible for the events of that night.
People are allowed to hire the lawyer of their choice. In a class action, class members are limited to either a single class counsel or a small committee of class counsel. This can leave the felling in particular plaintiffs that they are not going to be adequately represented and they might seek their own counsel to avoid it.
To echo pravnik, Rhode Island probably has rules to consolidate similar cases for pre-trial purposes, but I couldn’t find such rules in a quick search. In the pre-trial consolidation with which I am familiar, cases get transfered to one judge. The plaintiffs must form a committee to deal with the judge and the defendants. The judge then puts all of the cases on the same schedule and controls all of the discovery. In this manner, every plaintiff can select a lawyer, but all of the cases move forward in a manner like a class action.
The federal rules have a system like this. In multidistrict litigation (MDL), all similar cases get transferred to one district court judge. Then, everything moves forward in a grouped and orderly fashion. Here is a page that lists pending MDLs.
I hope that you realize that busy for a number of years is usually inefficient for plaintiffs’ lawyers. I’d bet that these cases are proceeding on a contingent fee basis. Therefore, the lawyer won’t get paid unless and until a case is resolved in a manner favorable to the plaintiff. It won’t pay the lawyers bills to let these cases drag on into the indefinite future.