## Facts

- Local 1010 planned and sponsored an outdoor union picnic on rented grounds for members and their guests; about 500 people attended and paid admission.
- The picnic committee decided in advance to have three or four police officers on duty, and paid a member to arrange for security.
- Only one security person was actually assigned; he was not a regular police officer and was about sixty years old.
- On the morning of the picnic, the committee chair recognized that more security was needed, but no additional protection was provided.
- Alcohol was available at the event, and the crowd became increasingly unruly as guests consumed it.
- Richard Becker, a guest who had been drinking, became involved in two fights but was not arrested, removed, or effectively controlled.
- Shortly thereafter, Becker drove his car into the crowd while aiming at a committee member, but instead struck and injured Ronald Merhi.
- The jury found Local 1010 negligent in providing security and controlling the premises, and found that negligence to be a proximate cause of Merhi’s injuries.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable finding that Local 1010 breached its duty of reasonable care to protect paying guests at the picnic from foreseeable harm.
2. Whether the evidence permitted a reasonable finding that Local 1010’s negligence was a proximate cause of Merhi’s injuries despite Becker’s intentional act of driving into the crowd.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for Merhi.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find Local 1010 negligent in failing to provide reasonable security and supervision under the circumstances.
- The court held the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find proximate cause because the injury was within the scope of the risk created by Local 1010’s conduct; Becker’s conduct was not a superseding cause as a matter of law.
- Applying a deferential sufficiency-of-the-evidence review, the court upheld the trial court’s denial of Local 1010’s motion to set aside the verdict.

## Legal Principles

- A party that rents and controls premises for an event owes invitees a duty of reasonable care, including reasonable measures to protect against foreseeable harm caused by third persons.
- The adequacy of security and supervision may be evaluated in light of the event’s circumstances, including crowd size, alcohol consumption, and prior disorderly conduct.
- An intentional or criminal intervening act does not automatically sever causation; liability may remain if the resulting harm falls within the scope of the risk that made the defendant’s conduct negligent.
- On appeal from denial of a motion to set aside a verdict, the reviewing court asks whether the evidence allowed the jury reasonably to find negligence and proximate cause.

## Conclusion

Because the jury could reasonably find that Local 1010 failed to provide adequate security for a large, alcohol-involved event despite warning signs and that Merhi’s injury was among the foreseeable harms that such security was intended to prevent, the verdict and judgment against Local 1010 were affirmed.


Merhi v. Becker, 325 A.2d 270 (Conn. 1973)