## Facts

- Kristie’s Katering, Inc. owned and operated the Discovery Club, a nightclub in Pulaski County, Arkansas.
- Around 1:00 a.m. on July 21, 1996, patron Nasser Ameri and a friend were at the club when the friend became involved in a verbal dispute with another patron.
- Ameri intervened to separate the parties, and then began leaving as the club was closing.
- As Ameri exited, security guard Lamont Charleston allegedly grabbed Ameri from behind and choked him while another security guard struck Ameri in the face, breaking his nose.
- Ameri incurred roughly $6,300 in medical expenses.
- Ameri testified that about six weeks earlier he had an encounter with Charleston in the club’s parking lot during which Charleston told him, “I will get you.”
- Evidence indicated security guards regularly ejected unruly patrons and used force, and that the club lacked a formal written training program, manuals, or written rules governing security-guard conduct.
- Ameri sued Kristie’s for negligent training and/or negligent supervision of its security personnel.
- A jury returned a verdict for Ameri and awarded $16,000 in damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court should have granted a new trial based on alleged juror misconduct or bias arising from a juror’s failure to disclose that the juror’s son had previously been ejected from the club.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the verdict for negligent training and/or negligent supervision, such that denial of Kristie’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) was proper.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of the prior confrontation and threat (“I will get you”) and evidence of the absence of formal training policies as relevant to foreseeability and negligent training/supervision.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Ameri.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a new trial for alleged juror misconduct/bias because nondisclosure and resulting bias were not shown.
- The court held substantial evidence supported negligent training/supervision, so denial of JNOV was proper.
- The court held the challenged evidence was relevant to foreseeability and the reasonableness of the club’s training/supervision practices, and its admission was not an abuse of discretion.

## Legal Principles

- An employer may be liable for negligent training or supervision when it knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that inadequate training or supervision created an unreasonable risk of harm to others, and that failure proximately caused the injury.
- In reviewing denial of JNOV, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict; the question is whether substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding.
- A new trial for juror misconduct requires proof that a juror failed to answer a material voir dire question honestly and that a truthful answer would have supported a valid challenge for cause; the ruling is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Evidence of prior confrontations and operational practices (including lack of formal security policies) may be admissible to show foreseeability and to evaluate negligent training/supervision, subject to the trial court’s discretion on relevance and unfair prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a negligence verdict against a nightclub operator where evidence supported that inadequate training and supervision of security guards created a foreseeable risk of excessive force against patrons, and it rejected a request for a new trial because the asserted juror-bias showing was insufficient.


Kristie’s Katering, Inc. v. Ameri, 35 S.W.3d 807 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000)