The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Castillo stopped at the A-Mi-Gusto Lounge to cash his paycheck. He was a sheetrock installer by trade and a musician with a band that played at the bar. Castillo was engaged in an argument by Pablo Ochoa, a clearly intoxicated patron who had been drinking at the lounge since mid-afternoon. Bar employee Deborah Espinosa, Ds' daughter, observed Castillo and Ochoa argue for almost five minutes but did not attempt to stop the fight nor summon the police. The argument ceased while Castillo went into an office with Espinosa to cash his paycheck. Castillo told Espinosa that he recently had been in a fistfight with Ochoa and that he feared Ochoa would act violently. Castillo also told Espinosa that he knew Ochoa carried a gun and that he had heard that Ochoa killed someone in another state. When Castillo returned from the office, the argument with Ochoa resumed and then escalated. Ochoa pulled out a pistol, shot Castillo six times, fled from the bar, and has not been apprehended. Castillo died en route to the hospital. The A-Mi-Gusto Lounge has a reputation as being one of the most dangerous bars in Bernalillo County and has been, in fact, the scene of numerous shootings, stabbings, and assaults. Ds did not employ any professional security personnel and employed only one bouncer, who normally did not arrive at the bar until 9:00 p.m. At the time of the shooting, Ds' son, Doug Atler, was the only male employee on duty. He was at the door checking identification and doing visual checks for concealed weapons. P sued Ds alleging a breach of duty to provide adequate security to protect patrons of the bar, including Castillo, who was specifically a foreseeable victim of harm. The trial court agreed. The court determined that Ds' negligence should not be compared with Ochoa's conduct and that Ds were liable for all damages awarded for the wrongful death. In an alternative conclusion, the court stated that if it were to be decided on appeal that Ds' negligence should be compared to Ochoa's conduct, then Ds were one-third at fault and Ochoa was two-thirds at fault. The court did not find Castillo to have been contributorily negligent. The appellate court reversed, holding that Ds’ negligence should be compared to Ochoa’s intentional torts and Ds should be held liable only for their proportionate share of fault. This appeal resulted.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.