A hotel licensee who fails to control a disruptive patron cannot escape liability on causation grounds merely because the injured plaintiff approached the disruptive patron to remonstrate, where such an approach was a foreseeable consequence of the licensee's inaction. The plaintiff's act of approaching the disruptive patron in a conservative manner is not a supervening cause breaking the chain of causation. An appellate court may substitute its own finding on causation where the trial judge's conclusion is an inference from primary facts and the trial judge had no advantage from seeing and hearing witnesses.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.