From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
Bencivenga v. J.J.A.M.M., Inc.
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
609 A.2d 1299 (1992)
J.J.A.M.M., Inc., d/b/a Club 35 (Club 35) (defendant), owned a nightclub with a dance floor. Ralph Bencivenga (plaintiff), his brother, and three friends went to Club 35 on January 9, 1988. Four bouncers were situated so as to have full visibility of the floor. In addition to overhead lighting, the club had a strobe light that was rarely used and could only be activated by employees through a locked door. While Bencivenga and his companions were socializing, a woman patron talking to one of the bouncers was pinched on her behind by a man passing by. The woman accused Bencivenga of pinching her, which he denied. Later, the woman again accused Bencivenga. The bouncer suggested that they leave. Bencivenga and his companions went to the dance floor. A few minutes later, the strobe light was turned on making it difficult to see. Four men crossed the dance floor, pushing people aside. One of the men accused Bencivenga of pinching his girlfriend. The man then struck him, breaking his nose. None of the bouncers intervened, either before or after Bencivenga was struck. Instead of contacting medical help or the police, the club manager Melvin Meszaros (defendant) and bouncers escorted Bencivenga and his companions outside. When they asked why Bencivenga’s assailant had not also been removed from the club, a bouncer replied that the assailant had “juice.” The assault resulted in Bencivenga needing surgery and suffering permanent damage. He sued Club 35, Meszaros, and various unidentified persons: the “John Doe” who had assaulted him and the bouncers who had not intervened. At trial, Club 35 asked the court to instruct the jurors to apportion liability by comparing the negligence of Club 35, Bencivenga, and the assailant “John Doe.” The court declined to give that instruction. The jury found Club 35 liable for failing to protect Bencivenga from the assault. Club 35 appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Muir, Jr., J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 631,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.