Man still carrying bullet in the groin wants restaurant to pay

Friday, March 5, 2010 at 1:17am

A Nashville man who last March was shot twice inside a Gallatin Pike location of Buffalo Wild Wings Grill and Bar filed suit Tuesday against the restaurant chain.

Lonnie Newsome still carries a bullet lodged in his groin from the incident, according to the lawsuit, and experiences pain and discomfort after long periods of walking or sitting.

His suit, which paints a hectic picture of a packed house for “students night,” claims the restaurant should pay because security guards were too busy checking IDs to provide security to patrons.

“Guards allowed an armed gunman to enter the restaurant and fire at least five shots in the restaurant … at least two of the shots hit the plaintiff,” the suit said, and once bullets started flying security guards started ducking instead of securing the restaurant.

Newsome is seeking a jury trial and $250,000 in compensatory damages including “medical expenses, pain and suffering and future medical bills.”

On March 3, 2009, Newsome and the unidentified shooter got into an argument after Newsome allegedly called the shooter’s female acquaintance “baby,” Metro police spokesman Don Aaron wrote in an email to The City Paper. A crowd gathered as the two argued and the unknown male pulled a gun and opened fire.

No charges were filed because neither Newsome nor anyone in the crowd identified the shooter, according to police.

The suit also claims that violence was the norm rather than the exception at the Madison eatery — citing 66 other incidents prior to that night, “some of which involved violence.”

But Aaron said over the past two years there have been 36 police responses to the Gallatin Pike Buffalo Wild Wings that resulted in reports being filed — more if you include false alarms, business checks and other calls. Of those 36, there were two domestic disturbance calls and three fights. The only shooting was the one involving Newsome, he said.

Newsome’s attorney Kathy Leslie said the suit’s allegation of 66 prior incidents was based on her research and information provided by Metro Police.

In a written statement, the restaurant’s corporate office said, "Buffalo Wild Wings takes the safety of its guests very seriously, though it is our policy not to comment on pending litigation."

12 Comments on this post:

By: bfra on 3/5/10 at 3:57

Can't wait to see d7's take on this one!

By: dargent7 on 3/5/10 at 6:06

D-7 here....What is it about "Buffalo Wings" that necessitates security , ID checks, police calls, and shootings? Maybe these folks might consider going vegetarian.

By: BEOWULF on 3/5/10 at 7:31

BEOWULF: Hey Newsome: if you stir the bucket, you're gonna get some on you - Hope you get a $1 settlement!

By: nothingbutagthng on 3/5/10 at 7:42

That's why I don't go around calling other guy's female acquaintances , baby..

By: house_of_pain on 3/5/10 at 7:50

Sounds like Newsome may have brought this on himself.
Why doesn't he sue the guy that shot him? Oh, right...there's no money in that...
I hope the this case gets thrown out.

By: jvh2b on 3/5/10 at 8:04

Well since they had security there in the first place, they may have a higher duty to protect the patrons...since they were just there to check ID's, that's one out for B Dubs. The best thing they have going for them is the fact that this bozo never identified the shooter, which makes him look like he's out to get money. Not to mention had he not started the whole chain of event's he wouldn't have a bullet in his pants.

I hope he gets zilch and is forced to pay for B Dub's attorney fees.

By: Kosh III on 3/5/10 at 8:08

Guns in bars are really proving to be a peaceful and law-abiding situation ain't they?

By: Rustmeister on 3/5/10 at 11:12

But "guns in bars" is still illegal in Tennessee.

By: hibbler on 3/5/10 at 11:42

I don't think guns were allowed in bars when this happened a year ago. Maybe if they had been this shooter wouldn't have been so bold to pull his gun or maybe he wouldn't have gotten away scott free.

By: Magnum on 3/5/10 at 12:31

Yes Hibbler, the solution to drunk people shooting each other in bars is to give every drunk person in the bar a gun. Makes sense to me.

Maybe if guns had been allowed in bars when this happened, someone would have shot at the shooter from across the room, missing the gunman and instead hitting an expecting mother who is out only to provide her recently divorced and now single friend a designated driver as she trys to move on with her life. I mean if you want to play the "maybe if" game, it has to go both ways.

By: Curmudgeon on 3/5/10 at 12:48

Lets not guess on the guns issue - No, they were probably not legal at the time, but even if they were... what are the odds the person who pulled a gun and shot someone over a "comment" about, or to, his girlfriend... would be a legal, registered carry permit holder? When will the anti-gun idiots realize that legal guns and gun-owners are not the risk - it's those who could care less about laws that will always have, and use, their guns in committing crimes.

Suing the "place" - rather than the perpetrator - screams boldly about litigious ambulance-chasers, and judges/juries who allow awards for such nonsense!

By: josphincter on 3/5/10 at 5:19

never monkey with another monkey's monkey.