Law Humor

This case report is triggering a new category, "[Lowering the] Bar Exam Questions."  Here's the first one:

Question 1:  Patricia Plaintiff patronized a pub called "Pissed Off Pete's."  Pete, who proved to be pissed off, pushed, punched and projected Plaintiff, producing pain.  Can Plaintiff properly pursue proceedings against Pete or Pete's pub?

In other words, if you go to a bar you know is called "Pissed Off Pete's" and are beaten up by Pete himself, can you sue or did you assume the risk that Pete would in fact be pissed off?

This is not a hypothetical.  Here's the case report from last week:

Patricia [Plaintiff] v. Pissed Off Pete's et al.
1/16/2008 CGC-08-471147 (San Francisco Superior Court)

Complaint for personal injury and assault. Defendant [Pete] became enraged during an argument at his bar, defendant Pissed Off Pete's. He dragged the plaintiff to the door, pushed her to the street, threw her against the wall, up into the air, and then slammed her to the cement ground, causing bruises all over her body and intense pain.

Answer: I don't think assumption of the risk is a defense to an intentional tort, but even if it were the sign only warns (accurately, based on the comments found at the link below) that Pete will be "pissed off."  Plaintiff would not necessarily have anticipated being physically assaulted.

Give yourself full credit for any answer you gave unless you are representing one of the parties to this case.  If so, no points.

Link: Yelp.com (info about bar) (case report from Courthouse News Service)