Nebraska Court of Appeals clarifies landowner liability where altercation between patrons was not foreseeable

In Martinez v. Amerigreen, the Nebraska Court of Appeals addressed premises liability and whether a bar owner could be held liable for injuries occurring on its property. Amerigreen was successfully represented by Erickson Sederstrom attorneys Matt Rusch and Ray Walden.

On New Year’s Eve 2014, Jason Martinez visited the Hive Bar in Omaha, operated by Amerigreen, LLC. The bar was crowded to the point that patrons constantly bumped into one another. Despite recognizing these conditions, Martinez made his way to the dance floor. There, he collided with two sisters, triggering an altercation in which one sister pushed him and the other threw a glass at his face, causing injuries.

Martinez sued the bar, arguing it breached its duty to provide a safe environment by failing to control overcrowding and provide adequate security. He claimed these conditions made the altercation foreseeable. The bar moved for summary judgment, arguing Martinez’s injuries were not foreseeable as a matter of law. Both the trial court and the Nebraska Court of Appeals agreed, ruling in the bar’s favor.

The decision turned on a foreseeability analysis. Under Nebraska premises liability law, a property owner is liable for injuries caused by a dangerous condition only if that condition created an unreasonable risk of harm the owner should have anticipated. Applying a five-factor test, the court found Martinez’s injuries were not foreseeable. Although the bar was crowded, there was no evidence that overcrowding made a violent attack predictable. The bar had no history of fights due to crowding, and the sisters had no prior incidents at the bar. The court distinguished between injuries naturally resulting from overcrowding—such as tripping or being trampled—and sudden violence caused by a third party. Overcrowding may make the former foreseeable, but not the latter.

The court also emphasized that the crowded conditions were open and obvious to Martinez. He acknowledged seeing the crowd, recognized that patrons were bumping into one another, and chose to stay. Under Nebraska law, when a dangerous condition is apparent, property owners generally are not liable because patrons can take steps to protect themselves. Martinez could have left or avoided the dance floor but did not. His failure to act relieved the bar of liability.

This case offers important guidance for business owners. First, a dangerous condition alone does not create liability without a specific reason to anticipate injury. Second, when a potentially dangerous condition is obvious, courts expect patrons to protect themselves. Third, property owners face greater liability for injuries directly caused by a dangerous condition than for sudden, unexpected acts of violence. The court noted, however, that different circumstances could lead to a different outcome.

See Martinez v. Amerigreen, 34 Neb. App. 347 (2026).