Two local restaurants sued for serving too much booze

Two separate Corbin restaurants were named as defendants in a pair of lawsuits filed last week in Whitley Circuit Court in Williamsburg.

Williamsburg attorney Paul Croley is listed as counsel for Danny L. Hoke, of Williamsburg, who filed suit against El Dorado’s restaurant, Jeremiah Goforth and Brandon M. Warren,

Croley also filed suit for Dannie Vanover, also of Williamsburg, who filed suit against Mountain View Lodge, LLC. Doing business as The Lion’s Den Lounge.

According to the complaints, Croley alleges that on or about Feb. 20, 2008 Hoke was a business invitee at El Dorado’s Bar and Grill in Corbin. As Hoke was leaving the establishment and while still on El Dorado’s property, he was assaulted by the defendants, Goforth and Warren, resulting in allegations of assault and battery against the two in the suit.

As a result of said assault, Hoke suffered severe head trauma and injuries before being taken to Baptist regional Medical Center for treatment. The suit claims that he continues to suffer from these permanent injuries and will require future medical treatment.

In addition, the complaint charges EBG with two counts of negligence, one as to security by not providing adequate security for its premises and/or patrons and to insure their safety, the other for allegedly violating Kentucky’s Dram Shop Act.

The Dram Shop Law holds establishments responsible for the dangerous actions of an intoxicated person when they have illegally sold liquor to that person. In addition to bars and liquor stores, these establishments can include restaurants, social clubs, and even private events where liquor is sold. While selling liquor to an obviously intoxicated customer represents the most common dram shop violation, the illegal sale of intoxicating beverages can take other forms, such as, selling liquor without a license to do so, selling liquor after hours, or selling liquor to a minor.

The suit claims that Gorforth and Warren were patrons at EBG and became intoxicated after being served beverages by staff and bartenders, hereby making the restaurant responsible for the conduct and negligent acts of its staff/bartenders under the theory of Respondeat Superior.

Respondeat Theory is a common-law doctrine that makes an employer liable for the actions of an employee when the actions take place within the scope of employment.

The suit claims that EBG was negligent, in the fact that their employees and agents, continued to serve the defendants when they knew or should have known they had become intoxicated and they should have also known that the two were risks to themselves and others by virtue of their intoxication. The suit goes on to allege that alcohol consumed by the two was a substantial contributing factor in the incident that caused injuries to Hoke.

The suit claims that due to the injuries sustained as a result of said assault, Hoke has suffered a pecuniary loss and should be entitled to recover damages for lost earnings, permanent impairment to earn monies, past and future pain and suffering and past and future medical expenses.
In the Vanover suit, it is alleged that on Oct. 18, 2008 Vanover was a patron of the Lion’s Den Lounge, which is an establishment that serves food and alcoholic beverage to customers.
It further states that the Lion’s Den, through its agents and employees recklessly and negligently sold and served alcoholic beverages to Vanover when a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances should have known that Vanover was already intoxicated.

The suit claims that the actions and or omissions of the employees and agents are imputed to the principle, MVL and Lion’s Den under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

The suit goes on to state that after serving Vanover, the defendant removed him from their establishment and that upon removal, nothing was done to ensure his safety. It also claims that the selling and serving of the intoxicating beverages was a substantial factor in causing him severe bodily injuries, including but not limited to, an amputated left leg and other significant physical and emotional trauma and that the defendant was negligent per se as its actions violated Kentucky’s Dram Shop Act.

Croley is asking that Vanover be awarded relief in the form of a judgment against EBG, interest on said judgment, prejudgment interest as allowed by law, attorney fees and costs, a trial by jury and all other proper relief, both legal and equitable, to which he may appear entitled.

No response has been filed in either case by the defendants.