TUCSON, Ariz. (Legal Newsline) - The parents of a man who was killed in the parking lot of a strip club can’t sue the club or the off-duty security guard who shot him, an Arizona appeals court ruled, finding the dead man was a trespasser after having been told to leave the property earlier in the evening.
Joseph Campos Jr. was part of a group of men who got into a fight waiting in line outside Eden Adult Cabaret and Café in downtown Tucson in June 2018. Eric Zamarra, a security guard, also went to Eden to drop something off for an employee. He was still wearing his shirt with “Security” written on it and helped one of the patrons who was knocked down in the fight.
The club manager told the rowdy men to leave and called the police but Campos returned, this time armed. Zamarra told the manager the men had guns and when a second fight erupted, he attempted to break it up but then shot Campos. The man’s parents, Joseph Campos and Maria Colmenaro, sued Eden for wrongful death, claiming the club had a duty to protect Campos against Zamarra.
A trial court dismissed the case and the Arizona Court of Appeals, in an Oct. 19 decision, affirmed the ruling.
Under the Restatement of Torts, Section 315, property owners can be liable for the actions of third parties if they have a “special relationship” with the victim, including if the victim was an “invitee” on the property, such as a business customer. The plaintiffs argued Campos was an invitee when he returned to the club, citing video that showed he didn’t have any contact with the manager before being shot. The appeals court rejected that evidence, however, ruling Campos had already been told to leave and no reasonable jury could believe he was an invitee when he returned.
The court noted that Arizona appeals courts have found bars liable for shootings when they fail to protect customers against drunken patrons. But an invitee can become a “trespasser” if he “exceeds the scope of invitation,” the court said, citing another case where a car-wash customer was injured vaulting over a railing in front of the business office. While the railing was in poor repair, the customer had no permission and no reason to try and jump over it, the court said.
“Here, Campos was not a business invitee of Eden when he was shot and killed,” the court concluded. Like the unfortunate car-wash customer, “Campos engaged in an implicitly unpermitted activity on the business premises by remaining in the parking lot after his group was denied entry into the club,” the court said.
“There is no question of fact for the jury,” the court ruled.
The club also didn’t have a duty to protect Campos against Zamarra because the club had no way of predicting Campos would return with a gun or that Zamarra would shoot him, the court ruled. The plaintiffs argued the club granted Zamarra “apparent authority” because he was present wearing a “Security” shirt.
“There is no evidence that Campos was even aware of Zamarra’s presence, let alone that Campos was relying on his protection as part of Eden’s security when he returned with his group to Eden’s parking lot after the first fight,” the court said. “Therefore, there is no genuine issue of material fact regarding apparent authority, and Parents’ argument fails.”