Aldon Smith, currently a linebacker for the San Francisco 49ers (placed on indefinite leave), is a named defendant in a lawsuit brought by a man shot at a party at the player’s home last summer. Smith has presented what some call an “odd” defense by arguing that the man should have known that’s the type of danger he was likely to encounter at Smith’s party.
Lawsuit against Aldon Smith
According to the plaintiff in the suit against Smith, Ronndale Esporlas, he had entered Smith’s San Jose home to join a house party. During the course of the party, Esporlas had made his way out to the front yard to talk with some friends. Moments later, Aldon Smith and Delanie Walker, another NFL player, drunkenly appeared on the balcony with illegally-possessed handguns and began firing them wildly in the air, according to Esporlas’ suit. Allegedly, this was Smith’s and Walker’s message to their guests that the party was over and it was time to leave.
Walker, who is also named as a defendant in the suit, then came down to the driveway and started firing into the crowd. Gunfire was return by other armed guests and Esporlas and his friends were caught in the crossfire. Esporlas sustained two gunshots to the leg and says he sustained “serious, catastrophic and permanent injuries.”
A few months back, on September 3rd, Esporlas filed a personal injury lawsuit against Smith, Walker and 100 unnamed defendants citing premises liability, negligence, and an intentional tort of firing guns into crowds of people. His lawsuit does not specify the amount of damages he is seeking.
A Complication of Transferred Intent
Many analysts have speculated that Esporlas has an excellent chance with his negligence case, and in fact he may. However, Esporlas’ personal injury attorney, Michael Grossman, explained that his intentional tort claim presents more of a challenge, because it’s unclear which person fired the gun that injured Esporlas.
Smith’s Response to Lawsuit Unconventional
Aldon Smith’s answer to the lawsuit presents an unconventional spin on the common defense of “assumption of risk.” Smith claims that by attending a party at his house, Esporlas assumed the risk of being injured by gunfire. Smith is quoted as saying:
“You should have known something like that could happen because I am basically a gangster and everyone knows it.”
Grossman referred to Smith’s use of assumption of risk in this case “patently absurd” and stated he believes most juries would agree.
“Just imagine what a jury’s reaction would be if any major retail chain was to defend themselves against a slip and fall case on the basis that ‘Our stores are always so slippery and everyone knows it, so it’s really the customer’s own fault if they slip while shopping in our store.”
References:
