The Utah Court of Appeals has ruled on a significant case involving Jerry Gallegos and Brewski’s on Historic 25th Street. The court addressed allegations of negligence after Gallegos was injured when a bouncer forcibly removed him from the bar. This ruling has implications for how evidence is handled in civil cases and the necessity of expert testimony in negligence claims.
In the case, Gallegos claimed he suffered injuries due to the actions of Brewski’s staff. The court's decision affects not only Gallegos but also sets a precedent for future negligence claims involving bar and restaurant establishments.
Background
Jerry Gallegos visited Brewski’s bar in January 2019 with friends. During the night, he intervened when a friend was being asked to leave, which led to a confrontation with the bar staff. A bouncer, referred to as Bouncer in the court documents, forcibly removed Gallegos from the premises, resulting in a serious shoulder injury when Gallegos fell.
Gallegos filed a lawsuit against Brewski’s and other related parties, alleging negligence and negligent hiring, training, and supervision. The case was initially handled in the Second District Court of Utah, where various legal proceedings unfolded, including sanctions against both parties for different reasons.
One major issue arose regarding the loss of video evidence from the bar’s security cameras, which Gallegos argued was crucial for his case. The evidence was lost due to the bar's security system automatically overwriting footage every ten days. Gallegos filed a motion for sanctions against Brewski’s for spoliation of evidence, claiming they failed to preserve the video footage after being notified of the potential legal action.
The Ruling
The Utah Court of Appeals, in its ruling filed on August 6, 2026, upheld the district court's decision regarding the spoliation sanctions against Brewski’s. The court found that Brewski’s had a duty to preserve the video evidence and failed to do so, leading to an adverse inference instruction for the jury. The court stated, “if the jury cannot determine from available evidence whether [Brewski’s] was negligent, it must assume that the spoliated evidence would have been unfavorable to [Brewski’s].”
However, the court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment on Gallegos’s claim of negligent hiring, training, and supervision. The judges concluded that Gallegos did not require expert testimony to prove this claim, as it could be established based on common knowledge. The ruling emphasized that “the question of what a reasonable person would do in performing background checks in hiring and in training and supervising employees is one permissibly resolved on the basis of the knowledge and experience of lay persons.”
Judge Amy J. Oliver authored the opinion, with Judges Gregory K. Orme and Ryan M. Harris concurring on various parts of the ruling. Judge Harris also authored a separate opinion regarding the necessity of expert testimony.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for future negligence cases, particularly those involving businesses like bars and restaurants. The court's affirmation of the spoliation sanctions underscores the importance of preserving evidence in legal disputes. It highlights that businesses must be diligent in maintaining video and other forms of evidence when they are aware of potential legal actions.
Furthermore, the decision clarifies the standards for requiring expert testimony in negligence claims. The court's ruling that laypersons can determine reasonable hiring and training practices without expert input may empower more plaintiffs in similar cases to proceed without the need for costly expert witnesses.
What's Next
Following this ruling, Brewski’s may consider appealing the decision, particularly regarding the reversal of the summary judgment on the negligent hiring claim. Meanwhile, Gallegos’s case will proceed in the lower court, where he will have the opportunity to present his claims without the burden of needing expert testimony for the negligent hiring, training, and supervision allegations.