In a standalone bar, ejecting an aggressive patron solves the immediate problem. But in a dense entertainment district, an ejection often just moves the problem 50 feet down the sidewalk, creating a new liability exposure for the venue that pushed him out.
Defense counsel often argues that once a patron leaves the premises, the duty of care ends. However, industry standards in managed nightlife districts increasingly recognize a “Duty to Warn.” If Venue A ejects a violent patron into a crowded district without alerting police or neighboring venues, they may be liable for the violence that follows.
Here is how we analyze “Ejection Handoffs” in multi-venue litigation.
1. The “Dump and Run” Violation
We frequently see cases where security teams “dump” an incapacitated or aggressive patron out the back door or into an alley to avoid police interaction. This practice, often called “curbing,” is a gross violation of standard security protocols.
If a patron is too intoxicated to care for themselves, or too aggressive to be safe, the standard of care requires a safe transfer of custody. This means handing them over to a sober friend, a cab/rideshare, or the police. Simply pushing a known danger into a public crowd is not “security,” it is negligence.
2. Failure to Utilize District Comms
Most modern entertainment districts (like Power & Light, 6th Street, or Beale Street) operate on a shared radio channel or digital text thread for security managers.
In litigation, we subpoena these communication logs. The “Smoking Gun” often appears here. If Venue A’s logs show they ejected “White Male, Red Shirt, Highly Aggressive” at 11:45 PM, but they failed to broadcast this description on the district channel, they denied Venue B (next door) the chance to lock their doors or prepare. If that patron walks into Venue B and punches a guest five minutes later, Venue A shares the blame.
3. The “Foreseeable Zone of Danger”
Courts are increasingly expanding the “premises” to include the immediate area outside the door, especially if the venue exercises control over that space, such as roped queues or smoking areas.
If a venue’s security team watches an ejected patron start a fight in the line for the club next door and does nothing to intervene or call for help, we can often argue that their failure to act contributed to the escalation. Security cameras often capture bouncers “watching the show” rather than de-escalating a threat they created.
The Takeaway An ejection is not the end of liability. Often, it is the beginning. By auditing district communication logs and security protocols, we can prove that the venue chose to “export” their problem rather than manage it safely.