injury liability

truthseeker123

hello
just a quick hypothetical question please

say in a licensed premises for example,
if an off duty barman was drinking in a bar, and he decided to eject another person from the premises. and the other person in question retaliated as he was being shoved out the door hitting the off duty slightly inebriated barman causing him some harm.

would the owner of such a premises be liable for the injury to the off duty barman, even though he would effectively have started the fight himself?

so what it boils down to is 2 punters fighting, 1 gets hurt, i.e the guy that started it, would the owner be responsible for any injuries caused?

tommy21

truthseeker123 wrote: »

hello
just a quick question

in my premises, an off duty bar man who was drinking in the bar at the time, decided to eject another person from the premises. the person in question was on his way out but gave the standard "f*** u" line as he was leaving, there was no threatening behaviour from the youth prior, but he was an undesirable. with this the off duty barman rushed at him and went to push him out the door. the guy being ejected fought back and the barman received a gash on his head which needed 5-6 stitches. some time later i'm now being sued by said barman for personal injuries arising from this incident after a fall out between us.

the guy was leaving, had not caused trouble, wasn't happy obviously but wasn't threatening either, the off duty barman who was drinking initiated the physical confrontation. this all happened nearly 2 yrs ago but only now is he suing. at the time he repeatedly said he was fine, didn't want any paid time off work that i offered, wouldn't let me pay the a&e bill despite me insisting i would. everything was "i'm fine" and "forget it". the whole incident was over in seconds and provoked by the off duty barman.

am i liable for his injury?

Ask a solicitor.

tommy21

truthseeker123 wrote: »

thanks for the in-depth insight.

i asked two, one said yes, one said no.

Well then you've sought legal advice and you have your answer.

truthseeker123

tommy21 wrote: »

Well then you've sought legal advice and you have your answer.

right i've re-read the charter, and what u said is fair enough about not being able to seek legal advice.



can i say that the above is a hypothetical, fictional situation and i'm not looking for any legal advice whatsoever but merely an opinion on what the law says on a such a situation if it were ever to occur?

or is that asking to be deleted also?

source

truthseeker123 wrote: »

right i've re-read the charter, and what u said is fair enough about not being able to seek legal advice.



can i say that the above is a hypothetical, fictional situation and i'm not looking for any legal advice whatsoever but merely an opinion on what the law says on a such a situation if it were ever to occur?

or is that asking to be deleted also?

Why would you spend money on solicitors for a hypothetical situation? Legal advice is not given here, changing tack halfway through a thread won't change the answers you're given.

truthseeker123

right but there's a discussion about a publicans duty of care a few threads below.

is this not even a remotely similar question, and below that there is another thread asking if a hotel has the right to send out an invoice for a room booked in connection with a newspaper ad. why am i not allowed ask the above question?

i don't see the the huge difference, i've tried to clean up the post to make it a general question and not so specific

Reloc8

Liability for injury caused by an inebriated punter comes down to :-

a) Whether the person serving the drunk should have reasonably foreseen that he or she would assault someone else. In cases where the drunk has been e.g. barred from the premises for violent conduct but served on the occasion in question nonetheless this can be established.

b) The view of the individual judge before whom the case comes before.

c) The specific facts of the case, and evidence given by the particular witnesses (which will heavily influence b).

In the hypothetical case you describe it would be perfectly possible that a given judge would dismiss it - particularly if there was no reason to think that the punter would hit someone. That is in respect of a primary liability, i.e. the duty to take reasonable care of people using the premises.

Further, the off-duty barman was not called upon in his duties to evict anyone, which takes out of the equation an employers duty of care to his employees. He was effectively acting of his own motion or 'on a frolic of his own' in law, unless it can be shown that off-duty staff are routinely required by the owner to act as ad hoc security (highly unlikely).

In the absence of some evidence that the specific punter should not have been allowed use the premises - i.e. previous form for violence which the licensee knew or ought to have known of - the case you describe is very weak on liability. In addition to this fundamental issue, the off-duty barman took it upon himself to intervene - as opposed to being a victim of random violence - volentia non fit injuria for all law geeks out there (i.e. voluntary assumption of risk). This to my mind makes the case very close to unstateable.

That is of course as against the owner/license holder - the punter is still liable in his own right for his assaullt, presuming that he did in fact assault the barman and was not acting in self-defence. On the facts you describe, this argument is perfectly open to him (the punter).