: Tort, assault and battery, negligence. Verdict: $2,077,500.
Case/Number: Peter Leeson and Grace Leeson v. Steuart Street Ventures, et al./964778.
Court/Date
: San Francisco Superior/July 18, 1997
Judge: Walter H. Harrington Jr.
Disbursement: $1.9 million to plaintiff Peter Leeson - $1.1 million (economic damages); $800,000 to
plaintiff Grace Leeson - $36,500 (non-economic); $141,000 (punitives), including $125,000 (from defendant Steuart Street Ventures); $5,000 (from defendant Bay Area Hotel); $10,000 (from defendant Kimpton Trust); $1,000
(from defendant Harry Denton).
Attorneys: Plaintiffs - R. Scott Erlewine (Phillips & Erlewine LLP, San Francisco). Defendants - A. Marquez Bautista (Leach, McGreevy & Bautista, San Francisco).
Technical experts: Plaintiffs - Oliver Sansen, security, Vallejo; G. Stephen Jizmagian, economist, San Francisco. Defendants - Thomas Del Torre, security, Novato; Mark Cohen, economist,
LaFayette.
Medical experts: Plaintiffs - Kenneth L. Baldwin, M.D., orthopedic surgeon, San Luis Obispo; Phillip Kissell, M.D., neurologist, San Luis Obispo. Defendants - Richard Dedo, M.D.,
orthopedic surgeon, Daly City.
Facts: On Dec. 31, 1993, plaintiffs Peter Leeson, a 49-year-old doctor, and his wife Grace, a 49-year-old certified public accountant, were patrons at a gala New Year's
eve party at Harry Denton's Bar & Grill (Denton's). Denton's is located in San Francisco and is part of the Kimpton Group of hotels and restaurants. Denton's is owned and operated by defendant Steuart Street
Ventures, a limited partnership, whose general partner is Bay Area Hotel Associates, whose general partners are the Kimpton Revocable Trust and 590 Bush, Inc. (collectively referred to as "the Kimpton
defendants"). Harry Denton is a San Francisco celebrity. The Kimpton defendants licensed Denton's name for the restaurant, and paid Denton to "consult" on the operation of the establishment and to greet and
entertain customers. The Kimpton defendants held Denton out to the public as the owner. Later that night, as the party was closing down at approximately 1:30 a.m., the Leesons and two of their friends were
sitting and quietly talking at the back of the bar. Denton, who had been drinking, was sitting at the same bar and, for no reason, threw a glass of ice water on Grace Leeson. When asked to apologize, Denton
began to insult Grace and Peter Leeson. Out of frustration, Peter Leeson threw aside a bar stool. According to plaintiffs, a waitress began yelling at Peter Leeson. Four security personnel employed by
the Kimpton defendants arrived but did nothing to intervene. The waitress then threw champagne in Peter Leeson's face, and he was immediately jumped by the security personnel who gang-tackled and piled on him, face
first into the cement floor. Grace Leeson rushed over and helped free her husband. Plaintiff Peter Leeson brought this action against the defendants based on battery and negligence theories of
recovery. Plaintiff Grace Leeson brought this action against the defendants based on battery and negligent infliction of emotional distress theories of recovery.
Contentions: The plaintiffs
contended that there was evidence that employees had been drinking on duty that evening with the permission and knowledge of the management. The plaintiffs also contended that there was evidence that the Kimpton
defendants knew that Denton had a drinking problem and nevertheless provided him with a free "promotional drink" tab. The defendants acknowledged the battery (i.e., throwing water) on Grace Leeson. However,
they contended that Peter Leeson had overreacted and pushed a waitress, therefore justifying the conduct of the security personnel, who they claimed acted reasonably to restrain him. The defendants also contended
that Peter Leeson was contributorily negligent.
Injuries: Plaintiff Peter Leeson claimed he suffered clavicular osteolysis, soft tissue back injuries at L4-5 and pain and suffering. He also
claimed there was a 70 percent chance of future fusion surgery. Plaintiff Grace Leeson claimed emotional distress.
Jury trial: Length, 11 days; Deliberation, ten hours; Comparative Liability,
15 percent (plaintiff Peter Leeson), 85 percent (defendants). Although the jury found that Peter Leeson was comparatively at fault, this finding did not reduce the amount of the judgment since comparative fault is
not a defense to battery.
Settlement discussion: The plaintiffs made a settlement demand for $1 million. The defendants made an offer of compromise for $15,000.
Post-trial motions: The defendants motion for a new trial was denied.
Other information: The verdict was reached approximately three years after the case was filed.
