Soundara v. AMB Sports & Entm't

899 S.E.2d 428

SOUNDARA

v.AMB SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT, et al.

Soundara

v.Kraver, et al.

Soundara

v.SAFE Management of Georgia.

A23A1449

A23A1450

A23A1451

Court of Appeals of Georgia.

March 6, 2024

Reconsideration Denied March 25, 2024

Alexandria Elizabeth Seay, Atlanta, Rishi D. Pattni, T. Peyton Bell, for Appellant.

Ronald Barrett Gaither, Mitchell Allan Robinson, Jarvarus Antwon Gresham, Atlanta, for Appellee in A23A1449.

Marc Howard Bardack, Atlanta, Elissa B. Haynes, Carlos Andres Fernandez, for Appellee in A23A1450.

Joseph Y. Rahimi II, Savannah, John Alden Hubert, for Appellee in A23A1451.

Hodges, Judge.

[1] After Lynda Soundara was injured in a brawl during a college football game at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in September 2017, she sued AMB Sports & Entertainment ("AMB Sports") and the Atlanta Falcons Stadium Company ("StadCo") (collectively, "the Stadium Defendants"); the Stadium Defendants’ security service, SAFE Management of Georgia ("SAFE"); as well as Charles Kraver Jr. ("Kraver Jr.") and his son, Charles Kraver III ("Kraver III") (collectively, "the Kravers"). In Case Nos. A28A1449 and 1451, she raised claims of negligence and vicarious liability against the Stadium Defendants and SAFE, respectively; in Case No. A23A1450, she asserted claims of assault and battery against the Kravers, All defendants moved for summary judgment contending, among other things, that Soundara cannot recover because she assumed the risk of harm by voluntarily inserting herself into an ongoing altercation. The trial court granted all three motions in separate and brief orders. Soundara filed the three appeals presently before this Court, which are consolidated for our review. For the reasons that follow, we affirm in Case Nos. A23A1449 and A23A1451, and we reverse in Case No. A23A1450.

Summary judgment is proper when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-11-56 (c). A de novo standard of review applies to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.

(Citation and punctuation omitted.) Britton v. Farmer, 283 Ga. App. 733, 733-734, 642 S.E.2d 415 (2007); see also OnBrand Media v. Codex Consulting, 301 Ga. App. 141, 144 (1), 687 S.E.2d 168 (2009) ("factual disputes regarding immaterial issues do not preclude summary judgment").

The record, which contains, inter alia, deposition evidence as well as video evidence from the stadium’s security cameras, shows that Soundara and her companions were sitting in the Florida State University section of the area of the stadium, also called the "seating bowl." The Kravers are University of Alabama fans but had mistakenly bought tickets for seats in the Florida State section. The Kravers and Soundara were sitting near one another but had no interactions in the seating bowl. During the game, Soundara left to use the restroom and purchase concessions. While she was gone, the Kravers became involved in a fight in the seating bowl, punching and hitting several fans; there was evidence that Kraver III punched someone in Soundara’s party — her fiance’s brother-in-law.

StadCo employees escorted the Kravers to the concourse area outside the seating bowl. The Kravers continued to exhibit "aggressive" behavior in the concourse, as observed by StadCo and SAFE employees, who did not alert a passing law enforcement officer. The Kravers eventually moved back toward the seating bowl, although the detailed evidence about the reasons for this, and the manner in which it happened, is inconsistent. A SAFE representative deposed that Kraver Jr. was allowed to go toward, but not into, the seating bowl, in order to identify other combatants. He was accompanied by security personnel. A Stadium Defendants’ representative, however, deposed that the Stadium Defendants tried to prevent the Kravers from going back to their seats and that he called for extra help via his radio.

While the Kravers were in the "tunnel" or "vomitorium" — the passageway which leads back to the seating bowl — talking with security, Soundara also entered the tunnel, on her way back to her seat after buying a pretzel. Her fiancé, Peter Hill, came out of the men’s room and entered the tunnel.

Videos from the stadium’s security cameras show what happened next from several angles. The video evidence shows Soundara waiting in the hallway outside the men’s room, holding something in a light-colored wrapper or bag. Nearby, stadium and security employees are gathered with a group of men, which includes the Kravers. Soundara appears to be watching the interaction. The group walks off camera and Soundara follows, also moving off-screen. One woman is using her cellphone to film the off-screen interactions. The group of men then moves back onscreen, bumping into one another at first; in a matter of seconds, this devolves into tussling and fighting. Soundara walks back onscreen and walks right up to the fighters, gets knocked down onto her bottom, gets up, takes a step or two backwards toward the wall and away from the fight, then pulls off her sandal and runs directly into the fight, striking people with the sandal in her hand. Kraver Jr. then grabs Soundara by her long hair and slams her to the ground before security workers move in to restrain him.¹ A stadium employee deposed that he saw Kraver Jr. with Hill in a "headlock," and that Soundara "came in and was just swinging … something in her hand … and then [Kraver Jr.] grabbed her and just flung her into the wall." The employee grabbed Hill to try to de-escalate the situation. He also called emergency medical services for Soundara, who was bleeding.

Soundara’s fiance, Hill, discussed the melee in his deposition. After leaving the restroom and entering the tunnel, Hill heard someone shout. He turned and saw Kraver III punching Kevin Breedlove, who is Hill’s brother-in-law. Hill deposed that Kraver III had previously punched Breedlove in the seating bowl. Hill yelled and threw his hat to the ground, motioning Kraver III toward himself in an attempt to bring the altercation in his direction and to get Kraver III off of Breedlove, who appeared injured.

Breedlove deposed that as he, Hill, and others were in the tunnel, someone punched him in the eye. He looked up after being punched and saw Hill and Kraver III fighting. Breedlove saw Soundara "walk over to, or run over to try to break that fight up." Breedlove saw Kraver Jr. "pull her off and slam her to the ground." Breedlove deposed that he also saw Soundara "jump on the younger Kraver's back while he … had Peter Hill in a chokehold."

Kraver III, by contrast, deposed that he and Kraver Jr. were walking with security back to the seating bowl to identify the other combatants when Hill threw his hat to the ground and began yelling "let’s F-ing go, or let’s F-ing fight" and then they "just tangled up and fought." Lillie Kraver, the wife of Kraver Jr. and mother of Kraver III, deposed that Soundara broke her son’s tooth and hit him over the head, and that Kraver Jr. "pushed" Soundara off of Kraver III in an attempt to protect his son.²

Soundara deposed that she saw herself in the video taking off her Tory Burch sandal. Although she did not recall running into the fight or hitting anyone with it, when asked during her deposition, "[D]id you see on the video that you were running towards them and you started hitting somebody over the head with your sandals?" Soundara responded, "I see it in the video." She also deposed, "I remember looking at —Peter [Hill] was getting choked and attacked by two people. It was a reaction. I'm trying to help them." Asked if she was "drunk" at the game, Soundara replied, "Yes[,]" but deposed, "I didn't get myself into a fight. It was there."

Case Nos. A23A1449 & A23A1451

1. On appeal, Soundara contends that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the Stadium Defendants (Case No. A23A1449) and the stadium’s security company, SAFE (Case No. A23A1451), against which she raised claims of negligence and vicarious liability. Her arguments on appeal regarding these appellees are similar, so we will address them together.

[2–4] Soundara argues that because employees of the Stadium Defendants and of SAFE knew that fights could erupt during football games and also knew of the initial fight in the seating bowl, they had superior knowledge of the risk for later violence. She also argues that the Stadium Defendants and SAFE violated their own safety policies, failed to guard, warn, and protect her, and failed to quickly report the incident to the Stadium Operation Center. She avers that the Stadium Defendants and SAFE were the proximate cause of her injuries because, inter alia, they neither prevented the Kravers from walking back toward the seating bowl nor ejected them from the stadium. Soundara further asserts that because the Stadium Defendants failed to show that she lacked care for her own safety and that no prudent person would have acted as she did, they have failed to show that she assumed the risk of injury. We disagree.

Before any negligence, even if proven, can be actionable, that negligence must be the proximate cause of the injuries sued upon. Assumption of the risk is a complete defense and arises when, even if defendant is negligent, plaintiff [herself] is negligent in such a way that [her] own negligence is the sole proximate cause. Although issues of negligence, lack of care in avoiding the negligence of others, lack of care for one’s own safety, and assumption of the risk are ordinarily not susceptible to summary adjudication, where the evidence shows clearly and palpably that the jury could reasonably draw but one conclusion the issue of assumption of risk may be determined on summary judgment.

(Citations and punctuation omitted.) Sapp v. Effingham County Bd. of Ed., 200 Ga. App. 695, 696 (1), 409 S.E.2d 89 (1991).

[5...