DES MOINES, Iowa (Legal Newsline) - A man who sued several partygoers including the guest of honor after getting into a drunken brawl on a bus that was used for a rolling bachelor party lost his bid to overturn a jury verdict against him after an Iowa appeals court agreed he failed to prove his case.
Dustin Kindig sued Spencer Newman and three other partygoers after a fight broke out on a small bus Newman’s brother had borrowed from the owner of the Press Box, a local bar, to transport them to a series of restaurants and bars to celebrate Spencer’s impending marriage. One of the partygoers served as designated driver while the rest became intoxicated.
Both sides agree that at some point in the evening Dustin told the driver to take them to a strip club, but Spencer disagreed and said it was time to go home. They also agree Spencer and Dustin got into a fight. But “from this point, the men’s retelling of the evening differs,” the Iowa Court of Appeals said in a May 12 decision.
Spencer and the rest of the partygoers recall Dustin punching him in the face and then hitting him on the eyebrow with a bottle. They say Jacob pulled the bus over and Dustin got off, followed by Josh, another partygoer, who asked Dustin why he punched Spencer. The two of them got into a fight by the side of the road and wandered off, with Josh asking Dustin to get back on the bus. The rest of the guests tried to find them in the bus but eventually gave up and drove home.
Dustin recalled things differently. He said Spencer shoved him and then he hit him with the bottle. When he left the bus, he says Josh punched him in the face several times. The bus then drove off and abandoned him, Dustin claimed, because they heard police sirens. Dustin sued Spencer, Josh and another partygoer for assault and battery, the bus driver for negligence, and the Press Box for premises liability.
The court dismissed claims against the driver and the Press Box but allowed the other claims to go to trial, where a jury ruled for the defense.
On appeal, Dustin claimed the trial judge improperly dismissed the driver and the Press Box from the suit and allowed in prejudicial testimony about his propensity to get into drunken fights. The appeals court rejected those arguments, saying the trial court ruled correctly that witnesses could testify about things they had personally witnessed.
“Spencer testified about seeing Dustin get into physical fights; pulling Dustin out of fights; observing Dustin get kicked out of bars for fighting; and observing Dustin hit others with objects like an unopen beer can, a pool cue, a pool ball, and a baseball bat,” the court ruled.
The plaintiff also claimed Spencer violated a motion in limine, or pretrial order prohibiting him from testifying about certain matters, when he referred to things “that I can’t talk about” on the stand.
“We disapprove of Spencer’s behavior,” the appeals court said, but “while Spencer’s comment could have tipped the jury off that there may be more to the story, it did not inject any new specifics into the story, and it was not so prejudicial as to necessitate a mistrial.”
The court upheld summary judgment against the Press Box, saying Dustin relied upon what other people told him about the bus to argue it functioned as a common carrier. The fact he’d seen it parked at the Press Box and once used for a bachelorette party wasn’t proof it was a common carrier, the appeals court ruled.
Neither could the Press Box be liable for negligence, the court ruled, because it didn’t owe Dustin a duty of care simply because somebody borrowed the bus for a bachelor party. Dustin argued the Press Box failed to limit the alcohol consumption of the partygoers, the court observed, but “the risk of harm was created by the partygoers themselves drinking to the point of intoxication and fighting with one another.”
As for the driver, the court said it is “important to remember” he “did not wreck the bus.” The driver had a duty of care as the operator of a vehicle he was in, but not to protect him against getting into a drunken altercation, the court said. “Contrary to Dustin’s assertion, sober individuals interacting with intoxicated individuals do not become their keepers,” the court noted.