## Facts

- Samuel J. Sunseri went to Imperiales Restaurant and Lounge, a bar and restaurant owned by Patrick Puccia.
- Larry Goeske was working as Puccia’s bartender.
- When Sunseri arrived at the bar, Goeske asked to see Sunseri’s identification to verify his age before serving alcohol.
- Sunseri showed identification, then complained to a friend about being “tired of being carded,” a remark that Goeske heard.
- The exchange escalated; as Sunseri prepared to leave, he made an obscene gesture toward Goeske.
- Sunseri presented evidence that Goeske became angry and physically attacked him, including biting (“gnawing”) Sunseri’s ear.
- Part of Sunseri’s ear ultimately had to be amputated because of the injuries from the altercation.
- Sunseri presented evidence that Puccia and others observed the incident and did not attempt to stop Goeske or otherwise intervene.
- A patron-witness (Richard Sikorski) gave testimony suggesting Sunseri started the fight, and defendants relied heavily on that account.
- At the close of Sunseri’s case, the trial court granted directed verdicts for the defendants, concluding the evidence could not support liability as a matter of law.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court properly directed verdicts under the Illinois standard that permits a directed verdict only when the evidence, viewed most favorably to the nonmovant, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict could stand.
2. Whether Sunseri was conclusively “bound” by adverse testimony from his own witness (Sikorski) on the question of who initiated the altercation.
3. Whether the evidence permitted a jury to find Puccia vicariously liable for Goeske’s conduct under respondeat superior (i.e., whether the assault could be found within the scope of Goeske’s employment).
4. Whether the evidence permitted a jury to find Puccia directly liable for negligence in failing to take reasonable steps to prevent or stop an altercation on the premises once it was occurring or reasonably foreseeable.
5. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by allowing cross-examination of Sikorski to go beyond the scope of direct examination in a way that helped supply defendants’ theory during plaintiff’s case and affected the directed-verdict ruling.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the directed verdicts and remanded for a new trial.
- Applying the *Pedrick* standard, the court held the case should have gone to the jury because the record contained conflicts on material facts, including who started the fight and the nature and extent of the force used.
- The court held the trial court erred by treating Sunseri as conclusively bound by Sikorski’s testimony; Sunseri was permitted to present other evidence contradicting that witness, leaving credibility and weight to the jury.
- The court held that, on this record, questions concerning whether Goeske acted within the scope of his employment and whether Puccia failed to act reasonably to control the premises were not matters that could be decided against Sunseri by directed verdict.
- The court also faulted the breadth of the cross-examination that helped develop defendants’ account during plaintiff’s case, contributing to the need for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- A directed verdict is proper only when all the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, so overwhelmingly favors the movant that no contrary verdict could stand (*Pedrick* standard).
- When the evidence conflicts on material points—such as who initiated an altercation, whether conduct amounted to provocation, or whether responsive force was excessive—those are jury questions.
- A party is not automatically and conclusively bound by unfavorable testimony from a witness it calls; the party may introduce other evidence, and the jury decides credibility and weight.
- Whether an employee’s intentional tort falls within the scope of employment commonly presents a fact question when the conduct arises from workplace duties (such as dealing with patrons and maintaining order).
- A proprietor may face direct negligence liability for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent or stop a fight on the premises when the risk is known or should be known and intervention is feasible.
- Trial courts have discretion over cross-examination, but allowing cross to expand in a way that effectively tries a defense theory during plaintiff’s case can distort the directed-verdict analysis where the resulting record appears one-sided only because of that ruling.

## Conclusion

Because Sunseri’s evidence, if believed, could support findings that Goeske assaulted him during a dispute arising from bar-related duties and that Puccia either bore vicarious responsibility or negligently failed to intervene, and because key facts depended on credibility choices among conflicting accounts, the appellate court held the trial court should not have removed the case from the jury and ordered a new trial.


Sunseri v. Puccia, 422 N.E.2d 925 (1981)