Skip to main content
Gregory A Allen

Gregory Allen’s Legal Cases

6 total

  • Marzano v. Pigs Eye Pub

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Feb 19, 2010
    Outcome:
    Defendant's Verdict
    Description:
    On February 19, 2010, a Hartford jury upheld the actions of the security staff of the Pig's Eye Pub when they attempted to physically escort the Plaintiff, Thomas Marzano, from its premises. This decision addresses a very important issue facing a lot of establishments and provides guidance on how security staff members should properly escort a patron out who does not want to leave. The incident in question took place on March 17, 2007. The Plaintiff was having a heated argument with a female patron who was later discovered to be the Plaintiff's sister. A security staff member testified that he asked them to calm down, and that they did, for a few minutes. The Plaintiff and his sister deny that this first warning occurred. The same staff member testified that approximately twenty minutes later he saw the Plaintiff choking his sister. In response to this observation, the staff member immediately went over and told the Plaintiff he had to leave, wrapped his arms around the Plaintiff, and began walking him towards the front door. The Plaintiff was struggling to get free and fell while he was being walked toward the front door. The Plaintiff and his sister both deny that the Plaintiff ever laid a hand on her that night. The sister did admit that she jumped onto the back of the staff member escorting her brother to the door. While she claims that she did this after her brother fell, three staff members testified that the Plaintiff was still standing just prior to the sister jumping onto the back of the security member. The issue the jury had to decide was whether or not the security member had a reasonable belief that the female patron was in danger when he acted, and that there was an objective basis for the belief that the female patron (the Plaintiff's sister) was at risk of imminent physical harm. In reaching this conclusion in finding in favor of the Defendant establishment, the jury had to also conclude that the security member used only reasonable force to escort the Plaintiff towards the door. In support of the reasonableness of the force utilized, and in addition to the above evidence, there was testimony that the security staff left the Plaintiff alone as soon as he fell and stopped being a security risk. No appeal or post trial motions were filed in the case.
  • Gordon v. Middlesex Mutual

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Outcome:
    Defendant's Verdict
    Description:
    Mrs. Gordon claimed she suffered personal injuries as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The defendant claimed that she was pushed into the Plaintiff's vehicle by a phantom vehicle that fled the scene of the accident. Her husand made a loss of consortium claim. The underlying and UIM cases were tried together. The plaintiff obtained a verdict against the tortfeasor. That verdict was appealed and ultimately settled.
  • Frederick Witte vs. William Murphy and Edna Murphy

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Apr 18, 2005
    Outcome:
    Defendant's Verdict
    Description:
    A painter who fell off the deck of a house and allegedly suffered multiple injuries claimed negligence by the defendant homeowners. However, after only 45 minutes of deliberation, a Danbury jury returned a defense verdict for the homeowners. Plaintiff Frederick Witte was hired by Defendants William and Edna Murphy to clean and paint the deck attached to their home. While powerwashing the deck, plaintiff fell off the deck to the ground approximately 23' below. Plaintiff alleged that defendants had negligently maintained the deck and that the deck constituted a nuisance. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants did not have a building permit for the deck. Plaintiff claimed to have suffered a fractured right clavicle and hip, fractured ribs, a punctured lung and soft tissue injuries to his shoulder, neck, low back and ankle, resulting in permanent impairment. Defendants denied liability. Defendants contended that the deck was already attached to the house when they bought it and that plaintiff was hired to maintain it for them. Defendants further contended that plaintiff’s explanation of how he fell did not make sense and that some of plaintiff’s problems were pre-existing.
  • Kristine M. Callender vs. Black Bear Hartford Hartford, LLC

    Practice Area:
    Personal Injury
    Date:
    Apr 19, 2012
    Outcome:
    Defendant's Verdict. Plaintiff was not able to show how the umbrella came free and relied on the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitor.
    Description:
    Plaintiff was allegedly struck by an airborne umbrella while seated outdoors at the Black Bear Saloon in Hartford. Complaint alleges that an unsafe and dangerous condition existed in that the outdoor umbrellas were set on tables with no anchoring to make the umbrellas secure and stable. Plaintiff allegedly sustained a cut to her face, a possible minimally displaced fracture of the right nasal bone, and soft tissue swelling in her right eye. Settlement Demand: $40,000; Offer: $10,000.
  • Loriann Magliulo v. Turtle Cove of Stamford

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Oct 12, 2012
    Outcome:
    Defense Verdict
    Description:
    A nightclub patron fell on a set of stairs just after entering the establishment. She claimed the fall was due to a defect, which was disputed by the defendant. The parties argued their cases before a Stamford jury, who returned a defense verdict.
  • Konesky v. Post Road Entertainment

    Practice Area:
    Litigation
    Date:
    Sep 25, 2013
    Outcome:
    Plaintiff's Appeal to the Supreme Court Denied
    Description:
    On July 5, 2013, the Appellate Court reversed a jury verdict in Konesky v. Post Road Entertainment holding that the trial court improperly applied the mode of operation doctrine to the case. The trial court held that the service of beer from a tub chilled with ice was an inherently dangerous mode of operation justifying a jury instruction on the doctrine. In overturning the verdict, the Appellate Court held that the service of cold beer, whether from a tub or cooler, is a necessary aspect of running a nightclub and therefore the Mode of Operation doctrine should not apply. This decision was significant given that the trial courts have been leaning toward an ever broadening application of the mode of operation rule. The Plaintiff filed a petition for certification to the Supreme Court to appeal the Appellate Court's decision overturning the jury verdict. The petition was denied on September 25, 2013. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the case leaves in place the Appellate Court's decision holding that the Mode of Operation Doctrine does not apply in these situations with regard to bars and nightclubs.