The Minnesota Supreme Court ordered a new trial in a wrongful death lawsuit arising from the murder of Unity McGill at The Red Carpet Nightclub in St. Cloud, ruling that the trial court's jury instructions were likely to confuse and mislead jurors.
In the case *Alvin Glay v. R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc.*, decided Jan. 28, the high court rejected the nightclub owner's argument that the plaintiff had invited error in the jury instructions. Justice Paul Thissen wrote the majority opinion, with Justice Margaret Hennesy taking no part in the decision.
Alvin Glay, serving as trustee for the next of kin of Unity McGill, sued R.C. of St. Cloud, Inc., which owned and operated The Red Carpet Nightclub where McGill was murdered by three assailants. The case centered on whether the nightclub had a duty to protect McGill and whether jury instructions on superseding intervening cause were appropriate.
The Supreme Court's syllabus establishes three key holdings that will guide future innkeeper negligence cases in Minnesota. First, the court held that the respondent challenging the jury instructions on appeal did not invite error in the district court's instructions. This rejection of the 'invited error' doctrine means plaintiffs can challenge problematic jury instructions even if they participated in crafting them at the trial level.
Second, the court addressed a specific issue in innkeeper negligence law, holding that juries should not be instructed on superseding intervening cause when the conduct an innkeeper claims supersedes liability is the same conduct that must be foreseeable to establish the innkeeper's negligence in the first place. This creates an important limitation on when superseding cause instructions are appropriate in premises liability cases.
The court explained that such instructions would confuse and mislead juries by asking them to consider whether conduct was both foreseeable enough to establish negligence and unforeseeable enough to break the causal chain. This circular reasoning problem led the court to conclude that the jury instruction was fundamentally flawed.
Third, the court found that the erroneous jury instructions were not harmless error but instead were prejudicial under the circumstances of this case, requiring a new trial. The court determined that the confusing instructions likely affected the jury's deliberations and verdict.
The case attracted significant attention from legal organizations, with both the Minnesota Association for Justice and the Minnesota Defense Lawyers Association filing amicus curiae briefs. The Minnesota Association for Justice was represented by attorneys Michael A. Bryant and Tucker L. Isaacson from Bradshaw & Bryant, PLLC. The Defense Lawyers Association was represented by Steven E. Tomsche, Richard C. Scattergood, and Samantha P. Flipp from Tomsche, Sonnesyn & Tomsche, PA.
Glay was represented by Jacob F. Siegel, Robert J. King Jr., and Kara K. Rahimi from Ciresi Conlin LLP in Minneapolis. R.C. of St. Cloud was represented by Gregory A. Zinn from Gregory A. Zinn, PLC, also in Minneapolis.
The decision clarifies important standards for premises liability cases involving businesses like bars and nightclubs. Innkeepers and similar business owners have a duty to protect patrons from foreseeable harm, but the scope of that duty and how it interacts with intervening criminal acts has been a source of litigation.
The ruling establishes that when a business argues criminal conduct breaks the causal chain to their negligence, courts must carefully consider whether instructing on superseding cause would create logical contradictions that confuse juries. If the same criminal conduct that allegedly supersedes the business's liability is conduct the business should have foreseen to avoid negligence, then superseding cause instructions may be inappropriate.
This decision will likely impact how premises liability cases are tried in Minnesota district courts. Trial judges will need to carefully scrutinize proposed jury instructions to ensure they don't present contradictory standards to juries. Defense attorneys may need to reconsider strategies that rely on superseding cause arguments when the allegedly superseding conduct is the same harm the defendant should have anticipated.
The case returns to the trial court for new proceedings, where Glay will again attempt to prove that R.C. of St. Cloud was negligent in failing to protect McGill from the fatal attack. The new trial will proceed with jury instructions that comply with the Supreme Court's guidance on superseding intervening cause.
The Minnesota Supreme Court's decision represents a significant clarification of premises liability law and jury instruction standards that will guide similar cases throughout the state.