By: Jacqueline Purmort-LaBue

During my two years living in Chicago, there was a live music venue that I returned to time and time again. Radius is a large, multi-room warehouse-style venue that hosts acts ranging from the dark, pumping techno of I Hate Models, to the indie-psychedelic rock beats of Unknown Mortal Orchestra, and the wrist-flicking tech house sets of Chicago native, John Summit. Located in Chicago’s East Pilsen neighborhood, Radius was previously an old steel factory and has since been transformed into a pillar of the electronic music scene. 

The Incident

Earlier this month, during dubstep trio Levity’s set at Radius, a non-structural wood ledger that was attached to a steel frame fell from the venue’s ceiling, striking attendees. The two individuals affected were a 29-year-old man who reported shoulder and neck pain and a 26-year-old woman who sustained a laceration to the back of the head. Both were taken to Stroger Hospital in good condition. 

Chicago’s History of Venue Negligence 

Suing and slugging it out in court is the American way, so we can definitely expect a lawsuit (or two). This is not the first time the Chicago electronic music scene has faced structural tragedy and legal scrutiny. In 2014, four people attending a DJ Datsik concert at Concord Music Hall, located in Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood, were injured when part of the ceiling came crashing down on their heads. Tina Somic, one of the victims who had suffered multiple head injuries, including a concussion, filed a premises liability suit naming Concord Music Hall, LLC and Club 2047, LLC as defendants. The complaint claimed that the venue’s owners were negligent for failing to keep the ceiling in a structurally safe condition or warn concertgoers about the hazard it posed, and that the venue negligently allowed performers to perform at dangerously high volumes, which increased the risk for a collapse. The demand for damages was $50,000. The suit never went to trial and the parties settled the matter (Agreed Order at 1, Somic v. Club 2047, LLC, 2015 Ill. Cir. LEXIS 9909 (2015) (2014-L-002082). 

Legal Implications

Premises liability law is a theory of negligence that holds a property owner responsible for any damages arising out of an injury on that person or entity’s property. The justification is that owners that occupy a property must make a reasonable effort to maintain a safe environment for visitors to it. Different states follow different criteria to determine who may recover under premises liability theory and under what circumstances, and usually fall into one of two camps: (1) focusing on the status of the person visiting the property or (2) focusing on the state of the property and the owner’s and visitor’s actions. 

Who Can Recover? Two Schools of Thought

Under the first camp, a visitor can be considered an invitee, licensee, or trespasser. An invitee is somebody invited onto a property for a commercial purpose, whereas a licensee is present on the property at the invitation or by permission of the property owner or occupant. The invitation creates an implied promise of safety. Some states draw differentiations between the standard of care between invitees and licensees while others hold them to the same standard. In many states, trespassers (visitors with no right to be there) cannot recover at all under premises liability, and only under strict conditions may have a pathway to recovery, such as increased likelihood of trespassers or in the case of a child trespasser. 

Under the second camp, different factors are considered when making a judgement, such as the circumstances in which the visitor came to be on the property, the reasonableness of the owner’s actions to repair and maintain the property or warn visitors, and the foreseeability of the injury. Generally speaking, owners or occupants have the duty to keep a property reasonably safe by regularly inspecting it, making repairs, and warning visitors of any hazardous conditions. 

Bars to Recovery

Most states, including Illinois, follow a comparative negligence regime in which an injured person who is partially or fully responsible for what happened cannot recover in full for damages arising out of a dangerous property condition. The justification for this is that visitors have a duty of care to themselves to prevent their own injury. Under a comparative negligence regime, a plaintiff who was found to be 20% responsible for the injury would only receive $80,000 of a $100,000 damages award. 

While it remains to be seen whether the injured concertgoers from the Radius incident will file a lawsuit, the venue could face legal scrutiny over its maintenance and safety protocols. Given the history of structural issues at music venues in Chicago, this incident serves as a stark reminder of the responsibilities that venue owners bear in ensuring the safety of their patrons.

As the Chicago electronic music scene continues to thrive, the balance between immersive, high-energy experiences and fundamental safety precautions remains crucial. Whether through stricter building inspections, enhanced venue regulations, or changes in how liability is determined in cases like these, one thing is certain: when the bass drops, the ceiling should not. 

#WJLTA #personalinjury #premisesliability #Chicago #music