By Gil Fried, University of West Florida,
Eric Johnson, Jr., was shot and killed while backstage at a concert produced by Live Nation Worldwide, Inc. (hereafter Live Nation). Johnson’s decedents filed a complaint for wrongful death alleging defendant Live Nation’s negligence caused the death.
The complaint alleges, “On Friday August 22, 2014, 38-year-old Eric Johnson . . . attended the ‘Under the Influence Music Tour Concert’ . . . held at the Shoreline Amphitheatre in Mountain View, California. Live Nation . . . had an exclusive lease agreement to operate, manage and provide security services at the Amphitheatre for the concert. Defendants promoted the concert and selected, hired and invited rap artists such as Wiz Khalifa, Young Jeezy, and others to perform at the concert.
At approximately 11:00 p.m., Johnson was backstage and a verbal altercation ensued. According to the complaint, Defendants’ security personnel failed to prevent, intervene and/or stop the altercation. Sometime thereafter, Johnson was fatally shot at the venue. No guns were supposed to be in the venue, which had screening for fans, but no real screening for those in the backstage area.
When the police searched Young Jeezy’s tour bus they discovered automatic assault weapons, and they arrested the rapper along with five members of his entourage for unlawful possession of the firearms. Neither the rapper nor any members of his entourage were charged in relation to the shooting.
The complaint alleged, “Defendants knew or should have known that many of the rap artists they selected, invited, and hired to perform are known to attract violent and unruly crowds at their concerts and shows. Defendants knew or should have known that many of the rap artists they selected, hired and invited to perform at the concert have themselves been investigated, detained, arrested and/or convicted of committing violent criminal acts. For example, on information and belief plaintiffs state that on March 1, 2012 a brawl erupted at a Young Jeezy concert in Orlando, Florida; on April 5, 2012 one person was shot multiple times while attending a Young Jeezy concert in Toronto, Ontario; on April 6, 2012 another person was shot while attending a Young Jeezy concert.”
Some of the claims included that Defendants failed to employ reasonable security measures to prevent guns from being brought into the venue. Furthermore, Plaintiffs claimed Defendants failed to employ adequate security measures at the Amphitheatre’s entrances or backstage. For example, they did not use metal detectors to screen guests, rap artists or their entourage prior to entering the concert or the backstage area. Defendants also failed to pat search or check the personal belongings and vehicles of persons permitted to enter the backstage area.
Live Nation filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that it owed no duty to ensure Johnson’s safety against “the unprecedented and unforeseeable homicidal acts of an unknown assailant.” Live Nation submitted a declaration by the head of security at Shoreline Amphitheater stating that there had been no prior homicides “or similar acts of violence” at Shoreline “including backstage” since at least 2001.
The trial court held, “Defendants have met their initial burden to establish through admissible evidence that the shooting of [Johnson] in the backstage area of the Shoreline Amphitheatre was not reasonably foreseeable and they therefore owed no duty to prevent the third-party criminal attack on [Johnson].” The granting of summary judgement motion was appealed.
The appellate court concluded that the record did not support the existence of a special relationship between Live Nation and the artists and their guests. In particular, the court focused on the fact that the artists had their own security protocols which Live Nation reviewed and incorporated prior to an event. For example, the headliner requested that the backstage area be cleared of any police presence for his performance unless specifically requested by his security to respond to a situation. He also detailed the number and location of security guards to be stationed backstage. Finally, the headliner indicated that his production team, rather than the venue, would be responsible for issuing backstage passes. The court concluded that given this evidence, the artists and their guests would not reasonably anticipate that Live Nation would be providing protection from criminal activity by and between the artists and their guests. The court differentiated this from cases where Live Nation is responsible for all security and guests would be counting on the company to provide a relatively safe environment based on known threats/concerns.
In conclusion the appellate court concluded that it was not reasonably foreseeable and too much of a burden to impose requiring Live Nation to undertake more advanced security efforts backstage without specific foreseeable threat. The court wrote that “a violent attack by and between artists and their guests in the backstage area of a performance is not a foreseeable occurrence against which Live Nation should have provided preventative measures.”
I am a bit biased in this case as I was the Plaintiffs’ expert witness. I have not heard anything about the case for several years and did not even know the case had been appealed. I think the court was parsing the facts. Yes, the artists want to be in control of the backstage area and to do what they want? But is that appropriate for a venue or event promoter? There have been multiple shooting between artists in and around venues, especially rap artists (as was the case here). Using the court’s logic, a venue, concert promoter, and/or sporting event promoter can contractually push security to another party, even with significant known risks, and then try to avoid potential responsibility for possible criminal conduct of third parties. For example, how many assaults in and around a stadium should prompt an entity to provide additional security to protect fans? Should this be based on just injuries in one area of a venue? Should industry trends and incidents play a role? Should security and safety be a global strategy involving the venue, promoters, artists, police, etc…? These are the types of questions that are still relevant and unanswered by the court. Some defendants are too remote to have responsibility for event safety, but others are a critical partner in the risk management process and maybe venue/promoters should not relinquish carte blanche responsibility to an artist simply because they demand that in a contract. For example, would a promoter allow artists to engage in illegal activity backstage, such as knowing and allowing underage women to engage in sex with artists on the property, simply because the artist tells the venue/promoter they should not interfere with anything the artists is doing backstage? Couldn’t that be examined as aiding and abetting in sex trafficking?
The opinion can be found at: https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/Dennis-v-Live-Nation-Drakeo-case-jan-2023.pdf
