Kuehn V. Pub Zone Case Summary

The Dustin Soldano v. Howard O’Daniels case models the common dispute between negligence and a party’s responsibility in an event. Likewise, chapter 1 of the Legal Environment textbook features Kuehn v. Pub Zone, a case that demonstrates a different scenario but the same battle of negligence and liability. The commonalities between the two cases support one another in the demonstration of the judges’ decisions as well as contribute to later common law.
In the beginning of chapter 1, Beatty asks some thought provoking questions to initiate an analysis of the Kuehn case. The questions are as follows, “Should a pub owner pay money damages to the victim of gang violence? The owner herself did nothing aggressive. Should she have prevented the harm? Does her failure to stop the assault make her liable?” When analyzing any act of negligence, asking questions like these can help to answer any case’s Issue concerning a defendant’s duty to an involved
Pub Zone case as a teaching tool for a negligence case. However, the above comparison between the book example with the Soldano case, makes it apparent that there is a common approach to this type of situation. In general, when cases are dealt with in similar manners an example is created for future cases to come. The book points out that when cases like this are referred back to for use in future decisions they stand as precedence; the larger amounts of similar cases, the stronger the precedent. The commonality that is found in cases like Soldano and Keuhn contributes to a precedent which can be reflected within the doctrine of stare decisis. Just as Judge Andreen supported his opinion with cases such as Tarasoff, Andreen’s decision as well as Payne’s can now help to facilitate additional judicial decisions. Therefore, it can be assumed that other negligence cases will come to a rational decision using the structured approach of deciding if the act was