govinfo:USCOURTS-ctd-3_24-cv-01342-2

Corpus: 543,223 opinions · 3,177 judges · newest 2026-06-23 · expanding Coverage ↗

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

GARY STANHOPE : CIVIL CASE NO.
Plaintiff, : 3:24-CV-1342 (JCH)
:
:
v. :
:
LIVE NATION WORLDWIDE, INC. :
D/B/A XFINITY THEATRE : MAY 11, 2026
Defendant. :

RULING ON MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 54)

I. INTRODUCTION
The plaintiff, Gary Stanhope ("Mr. Stanhope"), brings this suit against Live Nation
Worldwide, Inc., d/b/a Xfinity Theatre ("Live Nation"), stemming from an assault he
suffered from a third party during a Luke Bryan concert held at the Xfinity Theatre in
Hartford, Connecticut on July 30, 2022. Mr. Stanhope alleges that Live Nation
negligently failed to provide adequate security for its patrons, and that this failure was a
proximate cause of his injuries. See generally Complaint (Doc. No. 1).
Before the court is Live Nation’s Motion for Summary Judgment. See Live
Nation's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 54); see also Live Nation’s
Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Def.'s Mem.") (Doc.
No. 55). Mr. Stanhope opposed the Motion. See Plaintiff’s Objection to Defendant’s
Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 65); see also Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law
in Support of Objection to Motion for Summary Judgment ("Pl.'s Opp'n") (Doc. No. 65-
1). Live Nation replied in further support of its Motion. See Live Nation's Reply in
Further Support of Motion for Summary Judgment ("Reply") (Doc. No. 66).
For the reasons stated below, the court denies the Motion.

II. BACKGROUND1
Live Nation operated the Xfinity Theatre in Hartford, Connecticut, which hosted a
Luke Bryan Concert on July 30, 2022. See Plaintiff’s 56(a)(2) Statement at ¶ 14 (“Pltf’s
56(a)(2) Stat.”) (Doc. No. 65-2). Live Nation planned and prepared for the concert,
including hosting numerous country music concerts. Id. at ¶ 1. Live Nation hosted a
mock concert at the beginning of the concert season to acquaint security and staff with
operations, layout, and expectations. Id. at ¶ 2. Live Nation hired 116 security
personnel for the show. Id. at ¶ 3. Live Nation interfaced with Hartford Police frequently
to ensure off duty officers were available to work. Id. at ¶ 5. Live Nation retained 16
uniformed Hartford Police Officers for this show, who were visibly present at the gates
and near the site of the incident. Id. at ¶ 6. Live Nation issued an information sheet on
the day of the show which describes expected attendance, demographics, weather, and
other pertinent information. Id. at ¶ 8. Live Nation posted information to its website for
patrons regarding security and safety. Id. at ¶ 9. Live Nation conducted security
screening at the gates for weapons or dangerous contraband. Id. at ¶ 10. The security
director, General Manager, and Assistant General Manager met with all security
personnel before the concert commenced, to review assignments, deployments, and
general expectations based on past experience and predicted turnout. Id. at ¶ 11. Live
Nation adhered to the National Fire Protection Association standard regarding patron to
crowd manager ratio of 250:1, including the relevant show. Id. at ¶ 12.
Live Nation did not have a proper video surveillance system set up to monitor the
large crowd. See Plaintiff’s Additional Material Facts at ¶ 2. The security staff was not

1 The following facts are taken from Mr. Stanhope’s Local Rule 56(a)(2) Statement (Doc. No. 65-
2).

deployed adequately. Id. at ¶ 1. Live Nation failed to conduct proper crowd
management. Id. at ¶ 4.
On July 30, 2022, Mr. Stanhope attended the Luke Bryan concert at the Xfinity
Theatre. See Pltf’s 56(a)(2) Stat. at ¶ 14. Mr. Stanhope does not recall much about the
alleged incident or the evening. Id. at ¶ 15. He had attended prior concerts at the
venue. Id. at ¶ 16. Before entering the venue, Mr. Stanhope drank beers and smoked
marijuana while tailgating in the parking lot. Id. at ¶ 17. He believes he had one
additional drink inside the venue. Id. at ¶ 18. His blood alcohol level was recorded at
0.187 around 11:00 p.m. following the concert. Id. at ¶ 20.
Mr. Stanhope and his wife and friends were watching the concert from an area
called “the rail” between the lower tier general admission and the covered pavilion
seating. Id. at ¶ 22. The incident occurred at approximately 10:30 p.m. Id. at ¶ 23.
The following individuals attended the concert with Mr. Stanhope: (1) his wife,
Alexandra Stanhope; (2) Mindy Semmler; (3) David Thibodeau; (4) Heather Kennett; (5)
Steve Gazda; (6) Traci Hershman; and (7) Mark Pennell. Id. at ¶ 26. Mr. Stanhope
does not remember anything after approaching the altercation. Id. at ¶ 25.
Alexandra Stanhope did not witness her husband being struck. Id. at ¶ 27. She
had never had problems at prior shows at the venue. See Pltf’s 56(a)(2) Stat. ¶ 29.
She testified that, after the incident at a subsequent show, she was looking for security
and found them very easily, near the rail. Id. at ¶ 30. She had no reason to dispute that
around 115 security personnel or that 16 uniformed Hartford Police officers were on
duty that night. Id. at ¶ 31.

Steve Gazda did not witness the incident. Id. at ¶ 34. He saw security personnel
coming and going through the walkway area generally during the Luke Bryan show
before the incident occurred. Id. at ¶ 35. He testified that it "took a minute or two" for
someone to come over after Mr. Stanhope was on the ground. Id. at ¶ 36.
Traci Hershman did not witness Mr. Stanhope get hit. Id. at ¶ 37. Ms. Hershman
testified that she did not see anything that caused her concern sufficient to seek out
venue personnel, acknowledging venue personnel were at the gates no more than
twenty-two feet away. Id. at ¶ 39. She also testified that she saw EMTs stationed
nearby before the incident. Id. at ¶ 40.
David Thibodeau did not witness Stanhope getting assaulted. Id. at ¶ 41. He
observed EMTs on the other side of the rail in the area where he was standing before
the incident. Id. at ¶ 42. He testified that he observed someone kick Mr. Stanhope after
he was on the ground, but he admits this may have been inadvertent. Id. at ¶ 43.
Heather Kennett did not witness the incident. Id. at ¶ 44. Ms. Kennett testified
that she saw venue security at the main gates when entering the venue. Id. at ¶ 45.
She testified that seeing Hartford Police and security at the main gates was typical at
shows at the venue. Id. at ¶ 46. Ms. Kennett saw nothing concerning prior to the
incident, and recalled that security and paramedics responded within a couple of
minutes afterward. Id. at ¶¶ 48, 49. She had never had safety concerns or experienced
any problems at the Xfinity Theatre over approximately ten years of attending shows
there. Id. at ¶ 50.
Mindy Semmler did not witness the incident and did not see any fights prior to it.
Id. at ¶ 52.

Mark Pennell is the only witness who saw Mr. Stanhope assaulted. Id. at ¶ 54.
Mr. Pennell testified that he had no sense that Mr. Stanhope was about to be punched,
and that the assault happened fast. Id. at ¶ 55. Mr. Pennell was aware that venue
personnel were stationed on the other side of the rail near the incident. Id. at ¶ 56. Mr.
Pennell also testified there was no security present during the two-to-three minutes in
which the man was throwing the woman around. Id.
Mr. Pennell testified that he saw Hartford Police speaking to the assailant within
one to three minutes after Mr. Stanhope was struck down to the concrete. Id. at ¶ 57.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
A motion for summary judgment may be granted only when the moving party can
establish that “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256 (1986); Wright v. N.Y. State Dep't of Corr., 831 F.3d 64,
71-72 (2d Cir. 2016). If the moving party satisfies this burden, the nonmoving party
must set forth specific facts demonstrating that there is indeed “a genuine issue for
trial.” See Wright v. Goord, 554 F.3d 255, 266 (2d Cir. 2009). A genuine issue of fact
exists where “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” See Cross Com. Media, Inc. v. Collective, Inc., 841 F.3d 155, 162
(2d Cir. 2016). Unsupported allegations do not create a material issue of fact and
cannot overcome a properly supported motion for summary judgment. See Weinstock
v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33, 41 (2d Cir. 2000). In assessing the record to determine
whether there are disputed issues of material fact, the trial court must “resolve all
ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the party against whom summary

judgment is sought.” See LaFond v. Gen. Physics Servs. Corp., 50 F.3d 165, 175 (2d
Cir. 1995).
IV. DISCUSSION
A. Expert Testimony is not Required
As a preliminary matter, Live Nation argues that the standard of care for a large
concert amphitheater requires an expert whose testimony is admissible and, without
such testimony, Mr. Stanhope’s claims fail as a matter of law. See Def.’s Mem. at 13-
14. The argument is moot as the court denies the Motion to Preclude Mr. Kolins’
Testimony (Doc. No. 58), therefore Mr. Stanhope does have an expert to testify. See
Ruling on Motion to Preclude Mr. Kolins’ Testimony (Doc. No. 68)
As an aside, expert testimony in a negligence action “is required only when the
question involved goes beyond the field of the ordinary knowledge and experience of
the trier of fact.” See Brye v. State, 147 Conn. App. 173, 182 (2013). The facts of this
case are within a jury’s ability to understand. See, e.g., State v. Kenneth B., 223 Conn.
App. 270, 277, cert. denied, 348 Conn. 952, 308 A.3d 1038 (2024) (holding that a
reasonable jury could conclude a victim suffered serious physical injury from a physical
assault and loss of consciousness). The key facts involve a prolonged altercation with
two physical assaults, with multiple witnesses, and the plaintiff left on the ground
insensible and bleeding. A reasonable jury does not need to be a physical security
expert to determine whether the Live Nation breached its duty and security should have
responded to a prolonged assault in a high traffic area.
B. Mr. Stanhope’s Negligence Claim against Live Nation
A cause of action in negligence is comprised of four elements: duty; breach of
that duty; causation; and actual injury. See Ruiz v. Victory Props., LLC, 315 Conn. 320,

328, 107 A.3d 381, 387 (2015). There is a dispute only as to whether Live Nation
breached its duty to Mr. Stanhope regarding security precautions. See Def.’s Mem. at
14.
Mr. Stanhope asserts a single negligence claim. See generally Complaint, at
Count I. “The existence of a duty of care is a necessary element of a negligence claim.”
See Great N. Ins. Co. v. RLJ Plumbing & Heating, Inc., No. 3:04-CV-899(JCH), 2006
WL 1526066, at *3 (D. Conn. May 25, 2006) (citing LaFlamme v. Callessio, 261 Conn.
247, 251, 802 A.2d 63 (2002)). “The existence of a duty of care is a question of law and
only if such a duty is found to exist does the trier of fact then determine whether the
defendant violated that duty in the particular situation at hand.” Id. (citing Gerber Trade
Finance, Inc. v. Davis, Sita & Co., P.A., 128 F.Supp.2d 86, 95 (D. Conn. 2001). “If a
court determines, as a matter of law, that a defendant owes no duty to a plaintiff, the
plaintiff cannot recover in negligence from the defendant.” Id. Live Nation does not
dispute it owed a duty but argues that Mr. Stanhope cannot establish that Live Nation
breached its duty with respect to the security precautions at the concert. See Def.’s
Mem. at 14. Live Nation’s duty of care is determined by whether, given what the
concerned venue knew or should have known, it could reasonably foresee its conduct
was likely to result in harm of the same general nature as what actually occurred. See
Doe v. Saint Francis Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 309 Conn. 146, 169 (2013)
Genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether Live Nation was breached its
duty to Mr. Stanhope. Witness testimony includes evidence of other fights at the venue.
See Exhibit 11, pg. 34; Exhibit 7, pg. 11, 7-17. Mr. Pennell, the eyewitness to the
assault, observed a woman being swung around for a few minutes, and there was no

security around. See Pltf’s 56(a)(2) Stat. at ¶¶ 54,56. Ms. Hershman testified to an
aggressive and rowdy crowd as well as a few minutes of delayed response from the
EMT or security. Id. at ¶¶ 39, 40. A reasonable jury could credit this and other
testimony to determine that Live Nation breached its duty of care to Mr. Stanhope and
thus was negligent in its physical security precautions. Therefore, the court denies Live
Nation’s Motion for Summary Judgment regarding Negligence.
C. Superseding Criminal Conduct
Live Nation further argues that, even if Mr. Stanhope could establish a
negligence claim, it fails for the additional and independent reason of being barred by
the superseding criminal conduct doctrine. See Def.’s Mem. at 22. Live Nation relies
upon Snell v. Norwalk Yellow Cab, Inc., 332 Conn. 720 (2019) and Allen v. Shoppes At
Buckland Hills LLC, 206 Conn. App. 284, 295 (2021), to argue that these cases apply,
and therefore the superseding criminal conduct doctrine applies. Id. at 23.
Mr. Stanhope argues that the superseding criminal conduct, the assault, does not
relieve Live Nation of its duty to protect Mr. Stanhope. See Pltf.’s Opp’n at 13-14.
Furthermore, Mr. Stanhope argues that the Snell case, cited by Live Nation, is in
contrast with the present case, where Live Nation was the host of a concert event. Id.
at 14. In Snell, a cab driver (the defendant) left his keys in a car in a dangerous
neighborhood, two teens stole the car and went on a joyride while intoxicated, taking
turns to operate the vehicle, hit another vehicle and fled the accident, then drove onto a
sidewalk striking the plaintiff. Id. Mr. Stanhope argues that, in contrast to Snell, Live
Nation held a concert, served alcohol, and hosted a genre where incidents are likely to
occur. Id.

It is well settled that a negligence action consists of four elements: duty, breach,
causation, and actual injury. See Murdock v. Croughwell, 268 Conn. 559, 566, 848
A.2d 363 (2004). For the purposes of this argument of superseding claim conduct, Live
Nation does not dispute it owed a duty of care to Mr. Stanhope, that the duty was
breached, or that Mr. Stanhope was injured. See generally Def.’s Mem. at 22-25. The
defendant argues that the unknown assailant’s intentional criminal conduct severs the
link with any of Live Nation’s alleged negligence. Id. at 24.
The law is clear on a defendant’s responsibility.

As a general matter, a defendant is not responsible for anticipating the intentional
misconduct of a third party. . . unless the defendant knows or has reason to know
of the third party's criminal propensity. The criminal misconduct of a third party
may be foreseeable under the facts of a particular case, however, without a
showing that the defendant had such actual or constructive knowledge of the
third party's criminal propensity. As this and many other courts have recognized,
when a defendant's conduct creates or increases the risk of a particular harm
and is a substantial factor in causing that harm, or when the defendant otherwise
has a legally cognizable duty to aid or protect another person, the fact that the
harm is brought about by the actions of a third party does not relieve the
defendant of liability, even though the third party's conduct is criminal, if the harm
that occurred is within the scope of the risk created by the defendant's conduct or
reasonably could have been anticipated in light of the defendant's duty to protect.

Doe v. Saint Francis Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 309 Conn. 146, 172 (2013). Live Nation had a
duty to protect Mr. Stanhope. Mr. Stanhope and various witnesses assert that there
was a rowdy crowd, a lack of security enforcement, a prolonged fight, and a delayed
response from the EMT once Mr. Stanhope was assaulted. See Pltf’s 56(a)(2) Stat. at
¶¶ 36, 39, 40, 54, 56. A reasonable juror could find that it was foreseeable that Mr.
Stanhope would be injured under these circumstances. Therefore, the court denies
summary judgment based on superseding cause.

V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the court denies Live Nation’s Motion for Summary
Judgment (Doc. No. 54).

SO ORDERED.
Dated at New Haven, Connecticut this 11th day of May 2026.

/s/ Janet C. Hall
Janet C. Hall
United States District Judge

Passage view · GavelSight