Nebraska Supreme Court Reinstates $25,000 Verdict for Woman Attacked at Ranch Bowl Dance After Venue Dismissed Violence as Unforeseeable

Shortly after 1 a.m. on May 17, 1992, Tarsha Hulett went to the Ranch Bowl in Omaha for an after-hours dance event open to adults 18 and older. While she was in the women's restroom, another patron attacked her with a glass beer mug. Hulett was injured in the assault and sued the Ranch Bowl for failing to maintain a reasonably safe premises for its guests.

At trial in Douglas County District Court, the jury heard evidence about conditions at Ranch Bowl during the after-hours dances. One venue employee testified that altercations were a regular feature of these events, with an average of three fights occurring every single night that employee worked. The jury credited that evidence and returned a verdict for Hulett in the amount of $25,000.

The trial judge set aside the verdict on the Ranch Bowl's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court concluded that because the attack on Hulett occurred suddenly and without warning to her, it was therefore unforeseeable as a matter of law. The judge entered judgment for the defendant.

Richard J. Rensch, of Raynor, Rensch and Pfeiffer, P.C., appealed on Hulett's behalf. The central argument was that the district court had conflated two distinct questions: whether Hulett personally anticipated the attack, and whether the Ranch Bowl as a business owner had reason to anticipate that patrons might be assaulted. Those are not the same inquiry under Nebraska premises-liability law.

The Nebraska Supreme Court agreed. In a December 6, 1996 opinion, the court held that a proprietor's liability for third-party violence turns on whether the attack was reasonably foreseeable to the business, not whether the victim herself saw it coming. With three fights per night at the same recurring event, the evidence plainly supported the jury's finding that the Ranch Bowl knew or should have known its guests faced a meaningful risk of assault. The court reversed the district court, reinstated the $25,000 jury verdict, and remanded with directions to enter judgment in Hulett's favor.

The case is reported at 251 Neb. 189, 556 N.W.2d 23 (1996).