Nightclub incident

Rainmann

Hi all,

Was out with my friend on Saturday night. While I was getting a drink a guy attacked my friend leaving him with a broken nose... It happened in the smoking area and was unprovoked. There was no was no bonsers around at the time and there is no security cameras in the smoking area.. After he went to the hospital and made a statement with the gaurdi..Do you think he would have a case against the nightclub as they didn't have a bouncer to step in or any security cameras to capture the event?

punisher5112

Why when friend should be taking case against the attacker.

Sounds like you believe you or your friend should be held by the hand or have body guards.

These things happen unfortunately and it is up to your friend to chase after damages off the attacker.

Berkieahern

punisher5112 wrote: »

Why when friend should be taking case against the attacker.

Sounds like you believe you or your friend should be held by the hand or have body guards.

These things happen unfortunately and it is up to your friend to chase after damages off the attacker.

The nightclub have a duty of care to there patrons!

delahuntv

Surely if he was looking for compensation (and he'd have to prove his loss), it would be against the attacker and not the nightclub.

If you want to go against the nightclub, the onus will be on your friend to prove that the nightclub was negligent for the attack and should have been able to prevent it - better chance of winning the lottery without a ticket imo.

the_syco

Rainmann wrote: »

While I was getting a drink a guy attacked my friend leaving him with a broken nose... It happened in the smoking area and was unprovoked.

Has your friend pressed charges against his attacker, and if not why not?

punisher5112

Berkieahern wrote: »

The nightclub have a duty of care to there patrons!

Yes when it comes to a point of they were negligent or were the cause of injuries suffered.

I see someones eyes are going chaaaa chinnnnnggggggg.

MarkAnthony

You'd sue the attacker and join the nightclub. Nightclub = deeper pockets and insured. Hope that nightclub can't be arsed and gives you nuisance change. At least that's the plat of a Boston legal episode I watched once.

Get proper legal advice. Smoking is bad for your health :pac:

Isn't there a rather amusing case like this involving a couple of barristers?

scrummonkey

IMO, the night-club has a duty of care to its patrons. However, it would have to be established that the harm caused was foreseeable and that the club failed to take all reasonable steps to ensure the safety of its patrons. This may include assaults by a third party on the premises. It is not a given that the club would be found negligent. If the assailant can be identified , the Gardai should be informed who will investigate and decide if a criminal prosecution is warranted. A separate civil claim could be instigated against the assailent for damages etc, but this could be rather costly and pointless if said assailant has little financial resources.
As MarkAnthony alluded to, pick your battles.

Wile E. Coyote

Berkieahern wrote: »

The nightclub have a duty of care to there patrons!

No amount of security cameras or 'bonsers' are capable of preventing an unprovoked attack. If nightclubs were deemed to be negligent for every fight the happened on their premises then there wouldn't be a club in the country left open.

Uno my Uno.

delahuntv wrote: »

Surely if he was looking for compensation (and he'd have to prove his loss), it would be against the attacker and not the nightclub.

If you want to go against the nightclub, the onus will be on your friend to prove that the nightclub was negligent for the attack and should have been able to prevent it - better chance of winning the lottery without a ticket imo.

Not necessarily, we don't know all the circumstances. The Night Club have a duty of care to their patrons, if that DoC has been breached and the patron has suffered damage or injury as a result, his action for Negligence should be successful.

Wile E. Coyote wrote: »

No amount of security cameras or 'bonsers' are capable of preventing an unprovoked attack. If nightclubs were deemed to be negligent for every fight the happened on their premises then there wouldn't be a club in the country left open.

Well thats just not correct, if security staff were present they may have been able to intervene or deter the incident. More relevant is the circumstances of the attack and the attacker, was he acting aggressively before the attack? Were the nightclub security aware of him and his behaviour? should they have known that he was likely to attack someone or cause a fight? Had someone alerted them about him previously? Was he Drunk, did the Security know that? Had he caused trouble in the Nightclub in the past?

If so did the security take all reasonable steps to discharge their duty to the patrons? and if not did their failure cause the OP's friend's injury?

These are the questions that must be answered before it is possible to know if your friend has some recourse from the Nightclub, court cases against Nightclubs are notoriously difficult to win, the OP's Friend should consult a solicitor.

Del2005

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Well thats just not correct, if security staff were present they may have been able to intervene or deter the incident. More relevant is the circumstances of the attack and the attacker, was he acting aggressively before the attack? Were the nightclub security aware of him and his behaviour? should they have known that he was likely to attack someone or cause a fight? Had someone alerted them about him previously? Was he Drunk, did the Security know that? Had he caused trouble in the Nightclub in the past?

If so did the security take all reasonable steps to discharge their duty to the patrons? and if not did their failure cause the OP's friend's injury?

These are the questions that must be answered before it is possible to know if your friend has some recourse from the Nightclub, court cases against Nightclubs are notoriously difficult to win, the OP's Friend should consult a solicitor.

How would a person/solicitor find this out without taking a case against the nightclub?

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

How would a person/solicitor find this out without taking a case against the nightclub?

Talk to the victim and other witnesses.

delahuntv

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Not necessarily, we don't know all the circumstances. The Night Club have a duty of care to their patrons, if that DoC has been breached and the patron has suffered damage or injury as a result, his action for Negligence should be successful.



Well thats just not correct, if security staff were present they may have been able to intervene or deter the incident. More relevant is the circumstances of the attack and the attacker, was he acting aggressively before the attack? Were the nightclub security aware of him and his behaviour? should they have known that he was likely to attack someone or cause a fight? Had someone alerted them about him previously? Was he Drunk, did the Security know that? Had he caused trouble in the Nightclub in the past?

If so did the security take all reasonable steps to discharge their duty to the patrons? and if not did their failure cause the OP's friend's injury?

These are the questions that must be answered before it is possible to know if your friend has some recourse from the Nightclub, court cases against Nightclubs are notoriously difficult to win, the OP's Friend should consult a solicitor.

and its exactly this type of "argument" that makes winners out of solicitors and barristers.

For the OP - firstly the person atacked must prove a "loss" - were they out of work for a while, has the injury caused them to be unable to do something on a medium/long term basis.

How busy was the club. Was the attacker very drunk. Is there CCTV of the incident?

Did the nightclub staff see that the person was drunk and was it obvious that the attacker was going to hit someone?

You say there was no CCTV - so immediately it you friend's word against nightclub and assuming your friend was having a couple of drinks, it will be almost impossible to prove negligence against the nightclub.

Also, maybe read up of some recent cases that got thrown out of court and left the "injured" party with massive legal bills. (excess 30k in one case!)

MarkAnthony

delahuntv wrote: »

and its exactly this type of "argument" that makes winners out of solicitors and barristers.

If I want a luminous pink bath with three taps, one for hot, one for chocolate and one for treacle I would expect the plumber to get on a do it. If I hire professional advocates to advocate for me that's what I expect them to do. Should I be informed of the possible outcomes - of course. However baring my right to have a day in court makes losers out of more than just solicitors and barristers.

People are so quick to jump on the anti-litigation bandwagon not realising, many of the rights we take for granted now, didn't exist save for someone litigating the point.

Uno my Uno.

delahuntv wrote: »

and its exactly this type of "argument" that makes winners out of solicitors and barristers.

For the OP - firstly the person atacked must prove a "loss" - were they out of work for a while, has the injury caused them to be unable to do something on a medium/long term basis.

How busy was the club. Was the attacker very drunk. Is there CCTV of the incident?

Did the nightclub staff see that the person was drunk and was it obvious that the attacker was going to hit someone?

You say there was no CCTV - so immediately it you friend's word against nightclub and assuming your friend was having a couple of drinks, it will be almost impossible to prove negligence against the nightclub.

Also, maybe read up of some recent cases that got thrown out of court and left the "injured" party with massive legal bills. (excess 30k in one case!)

Not sure where the snarky attitude has come from but in respect of loss the OP's friend has pain and suffering, any hospital bills and any lost income. Certainly it is not a question of of the Victim's word against the Nightclub, the Victim did not assault himself and anyone else present during the attack will be witness, there may be other relevant CCTV footage. Negligence in a such a case may be Difficult but certainly not impossible.

fepper

Would it make any difference if you had payed into a niteclub or went into a late bar that was free entry as regards more responsibility by venue that charged you money if you were assaulted

delahuntv

Case today in UK - person knocked out and put in coma after unprovoked attack in nightclub.

Attacker got suspended sentence and was told to pay £1000 compensation to victim.

Nothing to suggest that the nightclub had any responsibility for the attack.


On above - i wasn't directing the comment on a personal level, but the whole merry go round of legal system especially in compensation cases is due to people in the profession telling people they possibly may have a case and give them false expectations.

MarkAnthony

delahuntv wrote: »

Case today in UK - person knocked out and put in coma after unprovoked attack in nightclub.

Attacker got suspended sentence and was told to pay £1000 compensation to victim.

Nothing to suggest that the nightclub had any responsibility for the attack.


On above - i wasn't directing the comment on a personal level, but the whole merry go round of legal system especially in compensation cases is due to people in the profession telling people they possibly may have a case and give them false expectations.

The problem is no one knows what sort of case someone has until the work has started. As much as I hate the phrase assumptions make an ass out of you and me.

I'm sure you're aware of this but for clarity criminal cases such as the one above don't deal with liability in the same way a civil case does, or indeed give a reflection on potential damages, the £1000 in that case is directed compensation.

Peregrinus

fepper wrote: »

Would it make any difference if you had payed into a niteclub or went into a late bar that was free entry as regards more responsibility by venue that charged you money if you were assaulted

No.

kidneyfan

Where is the negligence?
Had there been fights in the smoking area previously?
Had the individual who struck your friend ever struck someone in the smoking area before?
Was that individual belligerent previously?

ScouseMouse

Why would the nightclub have a duty of care? Surely its a public place, just like a pub, or Tesco, or McDonalds.

If I am standing in Tesco or McDonalds and somebody punches me, why would I have a case against the business?

Uno my Uno.

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Why would the nightclub have a duty of care? Surely its a public place, just like a pub, or Tesco, or McDonalds.

If I am standing in Tesco or McDonalds and somebody punches me, why would I have a case against the business?

They aren't public places, they are private premises.

the nightclub owes a duty of care to its patrons to ensure that they are safe while on the premises. However they are only required to do what is reasonable in the circumstances. A bouncer might be reasonable in a nightclub (or indeed in McDonald's late on a saturday night) but not in Tesco. If you were punched in McDonald's because the security wasn't doing their job or wasn't there at all you might well feel you had a case against them.

L1011

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

A bouncer might be reasonable in a nightclub (or indeed in McDonald's late on a saturday night) but not in Tesco.

I'd actually have far more expectation of Tesco having security than a McDonalds.

Uno my Uno.

fepper wrote: »

Would it make any difference if you had payed into a niteclub or went into a late bar that was free entry as regards more responsibility by venue that charged you money if you were assaulted

Peregrinus wrote: »

No.

I wonder (pure hypothetical spoofery here) is there a potential claim in Contract in such a circumstance? Punter pays a cover charge nightclub agrees to allow admission. Could you argue that there is an implied condition that adequate security staff will be provided?

Would the punter's claim be limited to the cost of the cover charge or could they seek to recover medical expenses, loss of earnings etc?

Uno my Uno.

L1011 wrote: »

I'd actually have far more expectation of Tesco having security than a McDonalds.

What Tesco's do you go to!

By security I mean a bouncer who is prepared to intervene in a physical matter rather than the typical "loss prevention specialists". McDonald's have such security in their late night stores, I once saw one intervene in an altercation with extreme prejudice but thats another thread.

L1011

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

What Tesco's do you go to!

The now closed Ballymun branch had someone I would consider at least looking more serious than loss prevention

My local McDonalds is 24/7 and I've never seen security and I've wobbled or driven there (day of week and reason appropriate) there at 3 or 4am enough!

kidneyfan

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I wonder (pure hypothetical spoofery here) is there a potential claim in Contract in such a circumstance? Punter pays a cover charge nightclub agrees to allow admission. Could you argue that there is an implied condition that adequate security staff will be provided?

Would the punter's claim be limited to the cost of the cover charge or could they seek to recover medical expenses, loss of earnings etc?

Isn't the test foreseeability?

Peregrinus

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

I wonder (pure hypothetical spoofery here) is there a potential claim in Contract in such a circumstance? Punter pays a cover charge nightclub agrees to allow admission. Could you argue that there is an implied condition that adequate security staff will be provided?

You can argue it, but I don't see that there's any great prospect of success.

The nightclub already has a duty of care to patrons. To get any benefit from a contract argument, you'd have to argue that there was an implied term in the contract that the nightclub would agree to be held to a higher standard of care than would otherwise apply. You're obviously going to have to argue for an implied contractual standard of care high enough to cover the facts of the case.

But you're only running this argument because the nightclub wasn't negligent - if it was, you could succeed in tort. Given that the club can't be shown to have been negligent, you're going to have to argue for an implied term that amounts to, or close to, an absolute guarantee that patrons will not suffer injury on the premises, regardless of fault on the part of the club. If that was an implied term of the contract, then obviously an injured patron could recover. But on what basis are you going to argue that that term is implied into the contract? The "officious bystander" rule is not going to help you, is it?

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

Would the punter's claim be limited to the cost of the cover charge or could they seek to recover medical expenses, loss of earnings etc?

If you were to succeed in a claim relying on contract, you'd be entitled to damages to put you in the position you would have been in had the contract been performed in accordance with the implied term. So you'd get pretty much the same compensatory damages as you would have got if you had succeeded in a tort claim.