Appeal Court Denies Compensation in Viet Restaurant Shooting

Giving no warning, two masked gunmen opened fire with shotguns as they entered a Vietnamese restaurant in Garden Grove in 1981. They left one woman dead and five others wounded, including a 19-year-old Marine who was rendered a quadriplegic.

Authorities said they believed that the shooting was a classic example of retaliation in an ongoing war among Vietnamese gangs. But police never solved the crime, arrested any suspects or established a motive.

On Thursday, an ambitious bid to win compensation for Brian D. Scott--based on a willingness of California courts to place greater responsibility on businesses for the safety of customers--failed.

Claims that the shooting was an assassination attempt on a notorious gangland leader who frequented the Hoang My restaurant with the blessings of the owner were not proven, a state appellate court ruled.

Free Meals Were Given

Hoang Thi Vo, owner of the Hoang My, had denied knowledge of the alleged underworld status of Tai Huu Nguyen. Vo testified in the 1985 trial of Scott’s lawsuit that he occasionally gave Tai free meals but regarded him merely as a good customer. Vo said he had heard nothing more than vague rumors about Tai’s gangland connections.

Several law enforcement officials testified that Tai was the leader of a Vietnamese gang called the Frogmen.

Tai’s nickname, Tai Cheim-Tai Chop, referred to the decapitation of his victims, according to one former Central Intelligence Agency employee who worked with local authorities in monitoring the gangs. One policeman testified that gang wars at the time were like underworld struggles in Chicago in the 1930s. Both of them pointed to a lack of cooperation with police within the Vietnamese community as inhibiting law enforcement.

Scott’s lawyer, Stanley D. Rutiz, attempted to portray Vo as a fearful small businessman who was a typical target of Vietnamese gangs. Police authorities testified that as many as 80% of the small businessmen in the Vietnamese community in Orange County were subject to extortion demands from gangs in 1981.

In the opinion Thursday, written by Justice Sheila Prell Sonenshine, the court found that the case was built on “speculation, suspicion, and surmise.” The court rejected Scott’s bid for a new trial of the case, which a Superior Court judge had dismissed after Scott’s evidence was presented in 1985.

Cannot Walk Without Crutches

Rutiz said he is considering an appeal.

Scott has paid more than $50,000 in medical expenses to date, according to his attorney, who said Scott cannot walk without crutches. Rutiz said that Scott has married and that he needs physical therapy daily.

“It seems to me the court was saying that the (Vos) were in a sense victims as well,” Rutiz said. “The court was saying, ‘Let’s say they’re being extorted; what are they supposed to do?’ ”

For Vo, lawyer James G. Boedecker said the decision means that the courts have refused to extend the liability of businessmen. If the Secret Service cannot protect the President, it would be unfair to require the owner of a restaurant to guarantee the safety of its patrons from all harm, Boedecker argued.

Traditionally, California courts had held that owners are not responsible for criminal acts committed on their property unless victims could point to earlier, similar incidents which would have provided a warning.

Then in 1985, the state Supreme Court threw out the old rule. A doctor who was shot in a hospital parking garage in Pasadena--a crime that was never solved--was given the right to have a jury decide his claim that the institution failed to do enough to protect the public, even though it was the first shooting in the structure.

In its opinion Thursday, the appellate court pointed to the absence of prior shootings at the Hoang My. The court noted that the only prior restaurant gang shootings occurred in 1978 in San Francisco and 1980 in Los Angeles’ Chinatown.

‘Exercise in Frustation’

Scott’s lawsuit not only alleged that Vo failed to provide protection, but also that he “created and fostered” the risk of violent crime at the Hoang My by encouraging Tai’s presence. Vo allegedly did not report gang extortion demands to police, the lawsuit said.

Rutiz said preparing for the case was “an exercise in frustration.” It was difficult to find individuals willing to testify about gangland influence, he said. Police officials, on the other hand, did testify about underworld terror in the Vietnamese community in general but not specifically about the Hoang My restaurant.

The appellate court ruled Thursday that the evidence from the law enforcement experts was properly excluded at the trial because none of it offered firsthand knowledge of the restaurant or Tai.

In 1983, Tai was convicted of assaulting a Vietnamese-language journalist who had written about the Hoang My incident.

In an earlier trial, Tai had been convicted of attempted murder and sentenced to nine years in prison. A Los Angeles judge ordered a new trial, which ended in a hung jury. Tai, still claiming that he had no gangland connections, then pleaded no contest to reduced assault charges and was placed on probation.

Tai also served a six-month jail term for illegal possession of a concealed weapon, found on him when he was arrested in the shooting of the journalist.

In an unusual footnote, Vo’s daughter, who worked in the Hoang My, reported an extortion attempt to Garden Grove police nine months after the 1981 shooting. At the time the report was made, the daughter, Kim Tranh, told police it was the fourth time the restaurant had been the subject of gang extortion demands. But, according to the court file, it was the first time one had been reported to authorities.

At the time of the Scott shooting, Vo had “no advance knowledge or warning” of the violence, Boedecker insisted.

“‘Vo had heard only a vague rumor of Tai’s involvement in some sort of racket activity prior to the shooting, but he had no reason whatever to expect violence in or around the premises, directed either at Tai or anyone else,” according to Boedecker’s court papers.