At 2 a.m. on January 20, 2013, Martin Eaton went to Kellogg’s Diner in Brooklyn. When the bill for his meal arrived, Mr. Eaton proffered his credit card but was advised that payment was required by cash. He was directed to an ATM in the foyer of the diner. Finding the three dollar ATM fee too much relative to his $14.30 bill, he decided to go to the grocery store across the street to use their ATM. As he was walking across the street, the diner’s security guard told him he had to return to the diner to pay his bill. When he re-entered the diner, the security guard grabbed him, knocked him to the floor and choked him.

Mr. Eaton, then 41 years old, claimed that he was injured and sued the diner’s owners and managers alleging that the security guard was their employee and that they are liable for his actions which constituted unlawful battery. The jury agreed and then awarded plaintiff pain and suffering damages in the sum of $550,000 ($275,000 past – seven years, $275,000 future – seven years).

In Eaton v. Fiotis (2d Dept. 2025), the appellate court found that the damages award was not excessive; however, the court remitted the case for a new trial on the issue of liability because the trial judge erred in denying the defendants’ request to ask the jury to determine whether the security guard was acting within the scope of his employment when he attacked plaintiff.

Here are the injury details:

• Bruises and pain in lower back, a knee, a shoulder and both wrists for which plaintiff underwent one chiropractic session before the injuries resolved in about five weeks
• Post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”). Plaintiff claimed that the incident was extremely humiliating and fearful and that it changed his view of the world and has left him suffering with manifestations including anxiety, anger, difficulty sleeping and nervousness.

Plaintiff did not undergo any treatment for his emotional injuries until five years after the incident when he started weekly sessions with a licensed clinical social worker who testified on his behalf. The treatment continued as of the trial date.

Inside Information:

• After plaintiff was battered by the security guard, a plainclothes officer took him to the precinct and he was jailed overnight. A few months later, the charges were dropped.
• Plaintiff asserted claims for battery, negligent hiring, false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution and violation of civil rights. Only the battery claim was allowed to proceed to a verdict.
• A defense psychiatrist examined plaintiff before trial and diagnosed him with mild, non-permanent PTSD that was “overdue” to go away.