Two Popular Bars Settle with Family of Man Beaten to Death in Philadelphia Bar
Two popular Philadelphia bars were found negligent in the 2012 Philadelphia bar wrongful death case of Kless v. Victor Holdings.
Kevin Kless left Lucy’s Hat Shop, a bar located in Philadelphia’s Old City, with his girlfriend on January 14, 2012. Kless was reportedly arguing with a cab driver, when the three assailants approached him. Kless, a Temple University alumni, was then beaten to death by Kenneth Enriquez-Santiago, Steven Ferguson and Felix Carrillo. All three assailants were also previously drinking at Lucy’s Hat Club and G Lounge, another bar named as a defendant in the Philadelphia bar wrongful death case. Kless’ girlfriend was not injured in the attack.
The estate of Kevin Kless settled for $7 million with the bars that served the man’s attackers, according to lawyers in the Philadelphia bar wrongful death case.
The $7 million wrongful death settlement was reached with defendant bars G Lounge and Lucy’s Hat Shop, which allegedly served the attackers extreme quantities of alcohol. After the men were served alcohol, they beat Kless to death.
“Kevin Kless did not deserve to die and the time has come to hold Lucy’s Hat Shop and G Lounge responsible and accountable for their actions as they relate to his senseless and premature death,” attorney Michael F. Barrett, of the firm Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett and Bendesky, said in a statement. “Pennsylvania’s liquor liability laws make it illegal for bar owners to engage in such reckless conduct and permit bars to be held liable in such instances.”
At the time of the attack, Enriquez-Santiago and Ferguson were allowed in the bars and served alcohol, despite being underage.
Mongeluzzi, one of Kless’ attorney’s in the Philadelphia bar wrongful death case, said he thought he was able to reach a settlement for both bars’ policy limits because of a standard for cases where alcohol is illegally served to minors, also known as dram shop cases, in Pennsylvania’s Fair Share Act. Interestingly, defendants in dram shop cases are not protected by that act’s limitation on liability and a finding of even 1 percent liability of any dram shop defendant could make them responsible for the entire verdict.