Assault by staff of an establishment!!

briantwin

Just wondering if anyone knows the legal stance on this topic.
lets say hypothetically a paying customer of a given establishment has traded unfriendly words with members of staff of an establishment.Then those staff as the person is leaving,give chase to the customer up the road 100 yards where the beat the person into intensive care. Apart from the perpetrators is the bar,bistro,club or pub also liabel as these employees were both on the clock and the incident began on the premises. All tangible evidence is already acquired...CCTV,several witnesses etc.Just a query.

Now,its just a query so i dont want the whole.there must have been more to it than that. Just wondering if any of the legal eagles on here have any insight.

Cheers

seamus

Seeing as the assault took place outside of the establishment, I don't see how there could be any liability on anyone but the perpetrators of the assault.

briantwin

Well the person was chased from the premises by members of the door staff and beaten severely. Does that change anything do you think?

seamus

I don't think so. If it occured on the premises or on the instruction of the premises, then perhaps, but assuming that the staff ran after said person off their own bat, then it's they who are at fault.

Though I'm sure there's case law about this, one of the legal dudes might have some links.

fowler100

Generally the employer would be head vicariously liable. However, only to the extent what is in the 'scope' or 'course' of the employee's duties. The actions of the employees in the instant case would seem to fall outside the general duites of bar employees unless it was expressed or implied by the employer to be part of their duties.

briantwin

So, for example if it falls into the remit of the bouncer to deal with people at the door or on the premises who have been involved in any sort of issue onsite of a disorderly fashion.Then during the process of ejecting the customer they chase him up the road and beat the snot out of him. Where would the liability lie. The initial contact was in the course of duty,the fact that the bouncer took his duties too far while still being paid to mind the door,does this not infer some liability to the management. if a chef pisses in your food in a restaurant is he alone liable or is the management aswell?? I'm just thinking these are similar enough situations,although the chef would be an absolute dirt bird if his piss landed you in intensive care....

seamus

briantwin wrote: »

if a chef pisses in your food in a restaurant is he alone liable or is the management aswell?? I'm just thinking these are similar enough situations,although the chef would be an absolute dirt bird if his piss landed you in intensive care....

That's not really comparable. If for example, a bouncer was ejecting someone from the premises, threw them out the door and they hit their head on a steel bollard, then the business could possibly be held liable because the injury occured due to the bouncer's actions, which he took because that's what his employer paid him to do.

In the case you describe, the bouncer performed actions outside of his assumed duty, which means that the employer should not be liable. By the same token, if that chef chases you out of the restaurant and stabs you with a knife, the restaurant cannot be held liable because the chef was acting outside of his duties. The fact that he's "on the clock" isn't all that relevant.

It would really have to be shown that the assault occured while on the premises or during the act of ejecting the customer from the premises. In the case you describe, the customer had already been ejected from the premises. So the bouncer(s) had already performed their duty, but then decided to deviate from their duty and assault the customer outside of the premises.

briantwin

Does anyone know of any precedence with case similar to this?

Victor

seamus wrote: »

It would really have to be shown that the assault occured while on the premises or during the act of ejecting the customer from the premises. In the case you describe, the customer had already been ejected from the premises. So the bouncer(s) had already performed their duty, but then decided to deviate from their duty and assault the customer outside of the premises.

If the assaults were in a single, unbroken series in particular if more than more member of staff was involved, I don't see why an action couldn't be brought against the employer also. But of course, that would be for the court to decide.

Krieg

briantwin wrote: »

Does anyone know of any precedence with case similar to this?

hmm not sure if this qualifys
2/3 years ago when a bouncer 'accidently' strangled some lad at a nightclub. (Im sure everyone knows this story but im lost on facts). He strangled the guy at the door as he was resisting but unfortuantly died.

The bouncer ended up in court on a possible manslaught charge but wasnt convicted. The managment were not held accountable

It was this incident that brought in the 'Security pass' thing


Looking for a link to the case now as im sure I have many details wrong there
edit: couldnt find any

krd

If any amount of alcohol was consumed, by any party. The gig will not hold up in court.

Simarily, should an individual want to beat the Sh*T out of another individual. It is advisable to make sure both parties have imbibed alcohol (even a single drink) before the event. As in PaddyWhack land, casual alcohol induced violence, is not considered criminal. But an endearing aspect of our cheerful national characteristics.

On another point. Soberly beating the **** out of someone, who probably deserves a good sober beating. Can land you in incredible trouble.

Tom Young

The issue of vicarious liability arises on the civil side, both in terms of Employee Control and action.

I don't agree with the alcohol argument as cited above.

seamus

krd wrote: »

Simarily, should an individual want to beat the Sh*T out of another individual. It is advisable to make sure both parties have imbibed alcohol (even a single drink) before the event. As in PaddyWhack land, casual alcohol induced violence, is not considered criminal. But an endearing aspect of our cheerful national characteristics.

Assault is rarely considered a criminal offence unless the nature of the assault is very serious or otherwise worthy of the state pursuing it. To say that the courts go easy on people who fight while drunk isn't really stating it correctly. The courts go easy on people who fight with eachother, period. Unless one party ends up dead or badly injured, the Gardai generally won't pursue criminal proceedings.

2/3 years ago when a bouncer 'accidently' strangled some lad at a nightclub. (Im sure everyone knows this story but im lost on facts). He strangled the guy at the door as he was resisting but unfortuantly died.

The bouncer ended up in court on a possible manslaught charge but wasnt convicted. The managment were not held accountable

I was thinking of this incident when this thread arose, but I'm not sure how much of a yardstick it is. The man died on the premises, but with the exception of CCTV footage showing the young man being dragged into the club by a number of bouncers, there was insufficient evidence to prove that the bouncer strangled the guy. And if the bouncer isn't guilty, then the club really has nothing to answer for.

What you'd really need is a case where a bouncer was charged with assault and found guilty.

briantwin

On that note. In the incident i was describing there was alot alot of witnesses. 10 impartial witnesses who have made statements gardai already,and if there is CCTV footage of the assault as well,would this be grounds for a case?

seamus

That would be for a solicitor to decide really. Ultimately one is free to take a civil case if they want. You don't necessarily need "grounds" for it, though any solicitor worth their salt would advise their client on the chances of success and the best approach. A judge may also slap you across the wrists for taking a frivilous or blatantly ill-conceived case to court.

In the case you describe, I think that without any kind of successful civil or criminal suit against the bouncer(s), the injured party wouldn't have much success attempting to sue the club. Witnesses and CCTV are only relevant to prove that the assault took place. They have no relevance on the club's liability.

As Victor says,

If the assaults were in a single, unbroken series ..., I don't see why an action couldn't be brought against the employer also. But of course, that would be for the court to decide.

This is quite relevant - if the beating started in the club and continued outside, then there may be grounds for a case.
From what you describe though, I get the feeling that the person was ejected and then there was a break of a minute or two. After which the bouncers were provoked by the victim or otherwise made a decision to attack him, separate to the act of ejecting him from the club.

sh_o

...since it is all hypothetical, if we assume that the person was chased from the club by the bouncer and assaulted in some way resulting in a serious injury, then if you were advised to take a civil case for compensation, the proceedings would issue against both the perpetrator and also the club.

Your cause of action would be both in negligence and also civil assault, battery (and potentially others also depending on circumstances, facts e.g. there may also be a contractual aspect etc. false imprisonment and others too! ).
It could be argued by the Club that the bouncer was not acting in the course of his employment and that the club should therefore not be held vicariously liable. The issue as to vicarious liability for the assault simpliciter can often be addressed by the negligence aspect, e.g. was the club negligent in its selection of staff, did they ensure that the bouncer was adequately trained, that he had adequate insurance and requisite passes and training etc. Did the Club have procedures and risk assesments done to ensure that such incidents do not arise and do they have specific procedures for how staff should deal with (potentially) such an incident. All of the other elements of negligence would also need to be present....

Also note that there would be a number of procedural aspects necessary, such as application to the PIAB and in the event of there not being an agreement, concurrent tortfeasors etc....

These things are never as straight forward as yes you have a case or no you don't have a case. That is why you would have a legal advisor involved.

briantwin

Great response,thanks for the info. Really appreciate it.

johnnyskeleton

briantwin wrote: »

Does anyone know of any precedence with case similar to this?

Reilly v Ryan (High Court judgment of Blayney J on 18 July, 1990 reported at [1991] 2 IR 247)

A manager in a shop used the plaintiff as a human shield to fend off the attack of a robber thereby physically assaulting the plaintiff and putting him in a position of great danger. The manager's actions were so excessive as to take them out of the class of acts which were impliedly authorised by the defendant, and that what he did went wholly outside that which he was employed to do, namely to attend to the defendant's customers' needs and safety.

The employees may be liable, but it is unlikely that the employers would be.

sh_o

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Reilly v Ryan (High Court judgment of Blayney J on 18 July, 1990 reported at [1991] 2 IR 247)

A manager in a shop used the plaintiff as a human shield to fend off the attack of a robber thereby physically assaulting the plaintiff and putting him in a position of great danger. The manager's actions were so excessive as to take them out of the class of acts which were impliedly authorised by the defendant, and that what he did went wholly outside that which he was employed to do, namely to attend to the defendant's customers' needs and safety.

The employees may be liable, but it is unlikely that the employers would be.

Purely for educational reasons :-) ... Lets assume the same facts as in Reilly v Ryan with the following additional (hypothetical) detail - if the shop had been held up on 3 previous occasions and on each of those occasions, the Manager had used a person in the shop as a human shield (but thankfully on those occasions no one was seriously injured, but two people complained to the employer), and after the first incident, the employer was recommended to install additional security features but didn't bother - could the employer be held liable?

johnnyskeleton

sh_o wrote: »

Purely for educational reasons :-) ... Lets assume the same facts as in Reilly v Ryan with the following additional (hypothetical) detail - if the shop had been held up on 3 previous occasions and on each of those occasions, the Manager had used a person in the shop as a human shield (but thankfully on those occasions no one was seriously injured, but two people complained to the employer), and after the first incident, the employer was recommended to install additional security features but didn't bother - could the employer be held liable?

Clearly you are looking for legal advice as managers use customers as human shields on a daily basis in this town .

The employer would be vicariously liable as by not cautioning or repremanding the person they are aware of the danger and failing to take reasonable care. In Hudson v. Ridge Manufacturing Co. Ltd [1957] 2 QB 348 a worker played pranks on his co-workers continuously and nothing was done to stop him. Eventually one person was seriously injured. Liability was imposed because the employers were aware and did nothing.

They would probably also be liable generally for failing to provide a safe and adequate staff to prevent injury to their customers.

You could also argue occupier's liability on the basis that there was a hazard on the premises, but that's getting a little too far fetched.

sh_o

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Clearly you are looking for legal advice as managers use customers as human shields on a daily basis in this town .

Grand so - warned him and now we can install the human shield ;-)

briantwin

So if for instance,returning to the OP there was a history of excessive violence with regard to several of the members of staff who took part in the assault. And assuming the door staff would have to be licensed and vetted correctly by the employer and this history of aggression was known to them,this would directly place the employer liable??? just a thought.

seamus

Possibly, but unlikely IMO.
Unless a member of the door staff had been previously sued for assault, or had criminal convictions for violent crime, then you would have a tough time proving that someone has a history of "excessive violence". If either of the above conditions were true, you would also need to show that employer knew about it, in order to establish any liability on the employer's part.

briantwin

Well if the door person didn't hold a valid IS199 (i think thats right) license then the employer would be liable for hiring someone who is unlicensed...no??

seamus

I'm not sure. I didn't think there was an legislation in force yet requiring doormen to be licenced.

briantwin

I used to work for a home secuirty company and I know that for security installation services ie. home alarm fitters etc all had to be licensed last year and when i read the application form it also covered door staff and airport secuirty ,event security etc.I thought they were all covered on this license but cant be sure. if it were the case would it carry any credence with the situation described?

Victor

briantwin, you sound like someone seeking legal advice or someone asking us to do their college paper for them.

seamus wrote: »

I'm not sure. I didn't think there was an legislation in force yet requiring doormen to be licenced.

seamus see www.psa.gov.ie (not www.psa.ie), you will notice doormen with ID tags these days.

briantwin

Sorry i didn't mean to get off topic in the legal discussion area!!!!! Duuhhhh of course im seeking legal advice,just Of course i am seeking legal advice,however im not giving details as it could affect whatever may happen to see me running my mouth off about the incident online. believe it or not alot of people have been stung from posting stuff privvy to their case online. I was looking for advice and opinions. Am i in the wrong forum, should i have posted this under gardening??

johnnyskeleton

briantwin wrote: »

of course im seeking legal advice,just Of course i am seeking legal advice,... I was looking for advice and opinions. Am i in the wrong forum,

Yes, this is the legal discussion forum, not the legal advice forum. Speak to a solicitor.

briantwin wrote:

should i have posted this under gardening??

Probably.

briantwin

I'll remember this in future. I mean if you look at alot of other posts on this forum,they are of a similar nature in that they explain a scenario noisey neighbours, traffic violations etc. these people are asking for advice aswell. So johnnySkeleton you'll have your hands full bouncing from post to post notifying everyone of their mistakes. No as to the OP, this is in regard to a friend of mine who fell victim to bouncers in this manner and i was just wondering where he stood legally. But i suppose if there are people in here who find it inappropriate to post this query on this forum then maybe there should be a legal advice forum. Sadly we're not all as legally savvy as some of you, but as opposed to responding in a constructive manner you just tell me to go to a solicitor......I suppose i better go to some other forums and notify people to go and speak to a mechanic, or a PC technician or what ever profession services the query in question ntead of getting ADVICE from other posters who may be able to help in some small way....would make this whole forum idea pretty f*ckin useless!! :mad:

johnnyskeleton

briantwin wrote: »

I'll remember this in future. I mean if you look at alot of other posts on this forum,they are of a similar nature in that they explain a scenario noisey neighbours, traffic violations etc. these people are asking for advice aswell. So johnnySkeleton you'll have your hands full bouncing from post to post notifying everyone of their mistakes. No as to the OP, this is in regard to a friend of mine who fell victim to bouncers in this manner and i was just wondering where he stood legally. But i suppose if there are people in here who find it inappropriate to post this query on this forum then maybe there should be a legal advice forum. Sadly we're not all as legally savvy as some of you, but as opposed to responding in a constructive manner you just tell me to go to a solicitor......I suppose i better go to some other forums and notify people to go and speak to a mechanic, or a PC technician or what ever profession services the query in question ntead of getting ADVICE from other posters who may be able to help in some small way....would make this whole forum idea pretty f*ckin useless!! :mad:

Get off your shinebox and read the forum charter. You have had your questions answered fully and in some considerable detail, yet you complain and deride the forum and it's posters. You started off saying that you were contemplating a hypothetical situation, and that it was just a query, but then you changed your tune and asked for legal advice.

Other posters discuss hypothetical situations out of curiosity, they do not seek legal advice. Threads where someone asks for legal advice are usually closed.

seamus

That's enough. I left the thread open because you were making an attempt to skirt around the issue.

Legal advice cannot be given here because someone obtaining incorrect legal advice or someone giving incorrect legal advice could result in serious legal problems for boards. The same cannot be said for motor mechanics or PC problems.