In Hanna v. Cloud 9, 889 P.2d 529 (Wyo. 1995), the Court again affirmed a summary judgment in favor of the bar owner. The plaintiff was an employee of the defendant bar, which adjoined a restaurant and coffee shop. The plaintiff had several physical confrontations with two other people in the kitchen of the restaurant. After going home, the plaintiff later returned and was injured in yet another confrontation in the bar. The Court concluded that under the facts of that case, the bar owner had no opportunity to intervene and therefore summary judgment was proper. Id. at 530. In reaching that conclusion, the Court synthesized the previous rulings by setting forth a three-pronged burden of proof in order for a plaintiff to establish liability against a bar owner: "a disturbance which did attract or should have attracted the tavern keeper's attention; the lapse of a reasonable amount of time between the attracting disturbance and the subsequent tortious act on the injured invitee by the other invitee, within which time period the tavern keeper had the opportunity to avert the impending danger or subsequent tortious act; and a relationship between the attracting disturbance and the subsequent tortious act." (Id. at 532.)