## Facts

- Members of the Red Hot Chili Peppers performed a concert at George Mason University (GMU).
- L.G. Management negotiated the performance contract between the band and GMU.
- Crown was a GMU student worker assigned to stand outside the band’s dressing room after the show.
- After the performance, band members allegedly surrounded Crown and another female student worker and sexually and physically assaulted them.
- The band members allegedly followed Crown to her car, continued the assault, and unlawfully entered her car.
- Crown filed suit against the band members, L.G. Management, GMU, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
- Crown filed a motion for judgment seeking \$1 million from the band, \$1 million from L.G. Management, \$1 million from GMU and Virginia, and \$1 million in punitive damages from all defendants collectively.
- L.G. Management filed a demurrer asserting it did not owe a duty of care to protect Crown from the band members’ alleged conduct.

## Issues

1. Whether Crown’s motion for judgment alleged facts sufficient to establish that L.G. Management owed Crown a duty of care to protect her from the band members’ alleged intentional assaults.

## Decision

- The Virginia Circuit Court considered L.G. Management’s demurrer to Crown’s motion for judgment challenging the existence of any duty owed by L.G. Management.
- Publicly available materials confirming the full disposition and reasoning of the court’s ruling are limited; the reported case is identified at 27 Va. Cir. 371 and 1992 WL 884644 (1992).

## Legal Principles

- In Virginia negligence actions, duty is a threshold requirement; absent a duty recognized by law, a negligence claim cannot proceed.
- Virginia courts commonly analyze claims seeking to impose responsibility for third-party intentional or criminal acts by asking whether a legally recognized relationship, control, or an assumed undertaking supports imposing a duty.
- On demurrer, the court tests the legal sufficiency of the pleading and treats well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion, while requiring facts that, if true, would establish a cognizable duty and claim.

## Conclusion

*Crown v. Kiedas* is a Virginia Circuit Court case arising from allegations that band members assaulted a GMU student worker after a concert; as to L.G. Management, the dispute presented on demurrer centered on whether a company that negotiated the band’s contract with the university could be said, based on the pleaded facts, to owe the plaintiff a duty to protect her from the performers’ alleged intentional misconduct.


Crown v. Kiedas, 27 Va. Cir. 371, 1992 WL 884644 (1992)