Nightclubs- any duty of care?

Lia_lia

Cork bouncers (most of them) are awful. The bouncers in the town I’m from tend to be grand. I used to go out in Dublin a good bit as my ex went to college there and the bouncers were all lovely. I don’t know what it is about the bouncers in Cork but they are a strange breed.

I’ve seen them act like bullies throwing offensive comments at punters many times. Never had an issue with them myself but I’ve seen the way they treat others.

I know the place you’re talking about OP and the bouncers in there have a bit of a reputation for being not so nice.

andekwarhola

The odd time I've been a bit worse for wear, it's nobody fault but my own. It's called personal responsibility.

leggo

Simona1986 wrote: »

What does kicking the person out and leaving them alone outside achieve?

They're then not liable for anything that happens to the person who's gotten themselves into a state. If that person, who again as an adult has made a conscious choice to drink themselves into oblivion, can't walk straight and falls, why should they get €20,000 off the nightclub (and these kind of claims can put people out of jobs) if it happens to happen on their premises?

SusieBlue

leggo wrote: »

They're then not liable for anything that happens to the person who's gotten themselves into a state. If that person, who again as an adult has made a conscious choice to drink themselves into oblivion, can't walk straight and falls, why should they get €20,000 off the nightclub (and these kind of claims can put people out of jobs) if it happens to happen on their premises?

Exactly this. If someone has potential to regularly disregard their limits and drink themselves into a dangerous state of intoxication, then that person just shouldn't drink. Full stop. The onus is on them to know their limits, that responsibility can't be expected to fall onto a perfect stranger in a club.

If someone doesn't know their own limits how do they expect a barman to know? These people just shouldn't drink if they won't take personal responsibility for the state they end up in.

end of the road

leggo wrote: »

They're then not liable for anything that happens to the person who's gotten themselves into a state.

sure, but someone else has to pick up the pieces. they should be obligated to call the gards at least.

leggo wrote: »

If that person, who again as an adult has made a conscious choice to drink themselves into oblivion, can't walk straight and falls, why should they get €20,000 off the nightclub (and these kind of claims can put people out of jobs) if it happens to happen on their premises?

tough **** really. they have insurence to cover the cost. people beginning to drink more at home will cost those jobs anyway. it's sad for those who would lose their jobs but god help us when automation comes.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Exactly this. If someone has potential to regularly disregard their limits and drink themselves into a dangerous state of intoxication, then that person just shouldn't drink. Full stop. The onus is on them to know their limits, that responsibility can't be expected to fall onto a perfect stranger in a club.

If someone doesn't know their own limits how do they expect a barman to know? These people just shouldn't drink if they won't take personal responsibility for the state they end up in.

personal responsibility isn't being disputed though. so it's irrelevant to the actual topic really.

Big Bag of Chips

end of the road wrote: »

sure, but someone else has to pick up the pieces. they should be obligated to call the gards at least.

Why the guards? And what do you think the guards should do for this type of person (multiples of these type of people) at 3am?

And if the guards say ok, "we'll be out as soon as we can". But if as soon as they can is an hour/two later and something happens her in that time is that the guards responsibility?

end of the road

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

Why the guards? And what do you think the guards should do for this type of person (multiples of these type of people) at 3am?

whatever the law would require them to do. it would be some bit safer then simply dumping someone on the street and come what may wouldn't you think?
if someone is going to have to pick up the pieces (in an ideal world they wouldn't but we don't live in one) isn't it better that the gards help then leaving it to some randomer? i'm talking in cases where someone isn't with friends.
look there are no easy answers here but considering the huge amount of pampering and protection the vintners get they should either be made have a small couple of obligations or their protection removed. they get a hell of a lot but some of them give nothing back.
it's not going to change the fact someone who got to drunk is at fault for that so there is nothing to worry about on that regard.

freshpopcorn

I was somebody who was never into pre-drinking and wouldn't have over done it on nights out but I did find the Cork city bouncer were very rough with people compared to other places. No matter how vulnerable the person was they were treated the same as a violent abusive person.

Stacksofwacks

As long as the person wasn't being aggressive and trying to start fights etc then the bouncers should keep her inside the door until a taxi comes/or a friend comes to escort her outside. It is dangerous to leave someone just thrown outside, they could be attacked/mugged, anything. if you are willing to let someone get into that state in your premises then yes you should have a duty of care, but it depends on the circumstances imo

end of the road

freshpopcorn wrote: »

I was somebody who was never into pre-drinking and wouldn't have over done it on nights out but I did find the Cork city bouncer were very rough with people compared to other places. No matter how vulnerable the person was they were treated the same as a violent abusive person.

i have been to cork a few times but never to a night club there, but i have heard about the reputation of cork bouncers a plenty over the years. of course it goes without saying all of them won't live up to it but it does seem to be the case that there are more bouncers with a problem there then other places.
i have been lucky in that i have never had a bad experience with bouncers but i wouldn't take the risk of going to a club in cork if i'm honest.

Roger Hassenforder

B.A._Baracus wrote: »

Yup. A lot of people like to claim spiking rather than just accepting they drank to much or drank on an empty stomach.

Thing is most of the time you will know if you got spiked... Like having two beers and suddenly on the floor? Think that's a give way.

interesting, she has reported taking a drink in the bar, but thereafter can remember people talking around/about her but couldnt move or talk herself. She apparently remembers things happening around her that would suggest she wasnt "traditionally" wasted.
maybe she was spiked

TrustedApple wrote: »

Crane lane is the other one and I do like the place but it's full of drugs. I have seen the bouncers getting so much crap in this pub. Glass bottle aimed at there head and just endless atticks from people if they refuse you in.

spot on!

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They have a duty of care yes but that in no way absolves you or your friends of your personal responsibilities whilst there.

If some-one is too drunk to be there then they should absolutely have the right to remove them. Your friend was likely to be a danger to herself and others. They had no choice but to take action.

Hey - I'm all for personal responsibility. If it was gat she only has herself to blame, or if gave her more drink and she already wasted.

"Taking action" though, so if they assessed her as a danger to herself and others, surely depositing her outside (in about 2oC - feckin freezin) belies this concern?

Big Bag of Chips wrote: »

OP, I'm confused. Were you as a group with her or not? On one hand you seem to say you were all there minding her, yet on the other she was thrown out and left alone?

Your question about duty of care is an interesting one. Although how many people were in the night club that night? And how many were over the legal drink-driving limit? How many stumbled home that night? Is the night club supposed to be responsible for each and every one? What if you in your slightly tipsy state stumbled off the footpath and injured yourself? Whose responsibility would that have been? Do the nightclub have a duty of care to make sure every person leaving is capable of leaving and unlikely to injure themselves/drive/start a fight?

A large group of work colleagues, some friendly with some more than others, some relative strangers. It had split into little groups. She wasnt part of my immediate work circle/group.

i appreciate what your saying, you go in drink, you're responsible for your actions. I dont think they're responsible for everyone leaving the premises, once they've left. If they're able to leave the premises.

However, this person was unable to leave their premises. She was removed and deposited outside on her own. I see a difference.

Stacksofwacks wrote: »

As long as the person wasn't being aggressive and trying to start fights etc then the bouncers should keep her inside the door until a taxi comes/or a friend comes to escort her outside. It is dangerous to leave someone just thrown outside, they could be attacked/mugged, anything. if you are willing to let someone get into that state in your premises then yes you should have a duty of care, but it depends on the circumstances imo

there was absolutely no aggressive behaviour (from any of us!)

MadDog76

Nightclubs, and their employees, have no legal responsibility in situations like to one described in the Op but morally they absolutely do ........... it's a sad state of affairs that the most dangerous people you could meet on a night out isn't other drunk people, it's people who are only doing their "job" and couldn't give a f*ck about how their actions, or lack thereof, could adversely effect somebody's son/daughter etc. ........... I bet those same people doing their "jobs" would hope their own sons/daughters would be treated better on nights out.

Hang on Now

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

So there we were last night in a late bar/nightclub establishment proximal to the GPO in Cork, on our Christmas night out.

No one really drunk, except at the end of the night one of our group was rather suddenly in very poor shape, and i dont recall her knocking back the gat like some of us. (Maybe her drink might have been spiked, maybe she was just wasted, i dunno).

Anyway, while we were minding her and formulating a plan to get her home, over come the bouncers, rather forcibly push us out of the way, lift her outside and deposit her on some kegs. And walk off.

I was struck by how little they seemed to give a sh1t, and if we werent with her, (not that they knew who we were, and whether we were with her), she was in serious trouble. In fairness, a lot of patrons were asking if she was ok, which is appreciated.

Notwithstanding the whole "responsible drinking" and personal reaponsibility for owns own actions, have such bars/clubs any duty of care or responsibility towards their customers.
In 30 years of drinking, i never someone so wasted treated this badly.

Thoughts?

Why drink? You lose money, damage your health, get a hang over, and publicly humiliate yourself. And in your friend's case, get deposited on some kegs!

I went out last night, entered a bar for free, that was bigger than a nighclub, spent €1.50 on a tonic water so I could pretend I was drinking, and ended up shifting a gal! At then at the end of the night I happened to end up giving a few nice dudes a spin home for €25!

leggo

end of the road wrote: »

tough **** really. they have insurence to cover the cost. people beginning to drink more at home will cost those jobs anyway. it's sad for those who would lose their jobs but god help us when automation comes.

What do you mean tough ****? Someone asked what doing this achieved, I explained it, and that isn't changing. So it's actually tough **** on you and whoever feels this way, because nobody is going to say "but this lad on boards said!" and change things.

I've zero sympathy for people who drink themselves to pieces btw. Life decisions have consequences and you face those consequences when you make poor decisions. People who argue "But it's not fair!" and want the government or the Gardai or businesses to pick up the pieces so they can do whatever they want, consequence-free, are just whiney, lazy and living in a delusion tbh.

AudreyHepburn

Simona1986 wrote: »

What does kicking the person out and leaving them alone outside achieve?

It gets rid of any liability the nightclub would’ve had regarding the woman in question.

At the end of the day she made the decision to go out and get drunk - she has to take responsibility for her own actions and the consequences.

end of the road

leggo wrote: »

What do you mean tough ****? Someone asked what doing this achieved, I explained it, and that isn't changing. So it's actually tough **** on you and whoever feels this way, because nobody is going to say "but this lad on boards said!" and change things.

it means if someone falls on their premises, they have insurence for it. it's just one of those things and it's tough ****. yes in an ideal world compensation would only be for those injured through genuine circumstances but we don't live in such, so the night club deserves no more sympathy then any of the rest of us on that regard.

leggo wrote: »

I've zero sympathy for people who drink themselves to pieces btw.

neither do i but ultimately that isn't the discussion of the thread really.

leggo wrote: »

Life decisions have consequences and you face those consequences when you make poor decisions.

agreed but again this isn't relevant to the thread as there is no real proof that the friend of the op was (or even wasn't) drunk.

leggo wrote: »

People who argue "But it's not fair!" and want the government or the Gardai or businesses to pick up the pieces so they can do whatever they want, consequence-free, are just whiney, lazy and living in a delusion tbh.

there is no tangible proof for that statement i'm afraid. some may very well be the case, but others won't be.
the thread isn't about whether businesses are responsible for people, it's about whether they should have some bit of duty of care to not simply be able to dump someone on the street and expect the rest of us to pick up the pieces. in a situation where someone is violent, they can call the gards and they will deal with them. in a situation where someone has friends then that is a problem mostly solved.

FTA69

I used to do doorwork at that venue and for a gaff full of hipsters I’ve been involved in more scraps in that place than anywhere else I can think of. Honestly it was nearly one night in three there was some sort of sh*te I had to put up with - including a time I’d to launch someone for trying to batter the owner.

leggo

end of the road wrote: »

it means if someone falls on their premises, they have insurence for it. it's just one of those things and it's tough ****. yes in an ideal world compensation would only be for those injured through genuine circumstances but we don't live in such, so the night club deserves no more sympathy then any of the rest of us on that regard.

the thread isn't about whether businesses are responsible for people, it's about whether they should have some bit of duty of care to not simply be able to dump someone on the street and expect the rest of us to pick up the pieces. in a situation where someone is violent, they can call the gards and they will deal with them. in a situation where someone has friends then that is a problem mostly solved.

If you get yourself into a state, you shouldn't expect a business to be forced to take responsibility for you. If you buy a litre of vodka from Tesco and drink it all in one at home, is it the Tesco till attendant's responsibility for serving it to you? It's a ridiculous argument to make.

Big Bag of Chips

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A large group of work colleagues, some friendly with some more than others, some relative strangers. It had split into little groups. She wasnt part of my immediate work circle/group.

Yet, you say..

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Anyway, while we were minding her and formulating a plan to get her home,

So at the time she was removed from the premises by the bouncers there was at least a few of you ("we were minding her"). So she was never dumped outside and left alone? Or if she was it was because all her work colleagues decided to stay on after the bouncers had removed her, and absolved themselves of any duty of care to their colleague?

Or, at least some of you went outside with her, and she was never left on her own at all?

I do get what you mean, but where does duty of care start/stop? This girl was never on her own, so the bouncers removed her and left it to her friends to organise getting her home.

I'd think if bouncers and pubs took it upon themselves to babysit everyone who drank too much on a night out then they could be accused of enabling problem drinkers. Should night clubs become B&Bs too? To allow those a little worse for wear to sober up? Should taxi drivers be called and the responsibility handed to them to get these people home safely?

I don't think there's an easy answer. But in the situation we are talking about, the girl was in a group. A group who were aware she needed to get home. The bouncers took her off the premises, and I assume the friends then organised to get her home?

freshpopcorn

I don't think the OP is looking for the bouncers to babysit or look after their friend for the night but from being out in Cork in the past anybody who they wish to ejected from the premises are just pushed out the door and thrown to the ground.

Big Bag of Chips

Except this one wasn't thrown to the ground, she was 'deposited' (not thrown, according to the OP) on some kegs!

Hector Bellend

Its the ones who cant handle their diesel that ruin it for everyone else.

Pukers and lightweights should be banned from christmas parties.

I'm surprised some of them can make it until closing time

SusieBlue

MadDog76 wrote: »

Nightclubs, and their employees, have no legal responsibility in situations like to one described in the Op but morally they absolutely do ........... it's a sad state of affairs that the most dangerous people you could meet on a night out isn't other drunk people, it's people who are only doing their "job" and couldn't give a f*ck about how their actions, or lack thereof, could adversely effect somebody's son/daughter etc. ........... I bet those same people doing their "jobs" would hope their own sons/daughters would be treated better on nights out.

That's so unfair. I did many years of bar work, most of which was in nightclubs.
The abuse I received on a regular basis made retail feel like a walk in the park.
I was pushed, I was spat at, I was puked on, I was hit, I was screamed at, I was groped more often than I'd like to remember, I was called names, and I had stuff thrown at me, all for a laugh. My bouncer colleagues got even worse.
All for the privilege of working till 4/5am in the morning, all public holidays including Christmas and minimum wage.
I can accept that, as much as I don't like it, because it's par for the course in that line of work. It's what I signed up for.
However, it is not my responsibility to babysit every customer and make sure they don't go over their limit. Sure, I would look out for the signs and cut someone off if they were worse for wear. But other than that, sorry, not my problem.
Doing 'just my job' was hard enough without the pressure of having to monitor every single customer to make sure they aren't getting themselves into dangerous levels of intoxication or dangerous situations.
Anyone who is mature enough to be drinking alcohol should be mature enough to ensure they don't exceed safe levels of consumption. If they aren't able to do that then they just simply shouldn't drink.
The blame cannot be put on the bar staff or security staff for a grown adult not knowing their limits.

MadDog76

WhiteRoses wrote: »

That's so unfair. I did many years of bar work, most of which was in nightclubs.
The abuse I received on a regular basis made retail feel like a walk in the park.
I was pushed, I was spat at, I was puked on, I was hit, I was screamed at, I was groped more often than I'd like to remember, I was called names, and I had stuff thrown at me, all for a laugh. My bouncer colleagues got even worse.
All for the privilege of working till 4/5am in the morning, all public holidays including Christmas and minimum wage.
I can accept that, as much as I don't like it, because it's par for the course in that line of work. It's what I signed up for.
However, it is not my responsibility to babysit every customer and make sure they don't go over their limit. Sure, I would look out for the signs and cut someone off if they were worse for wear. But other than that, sorry, not my problem.
Doing 'just my job' was hard enough without the pressure of having to monitor every single customer to make sure they aren't getting themselves into dangerous levels of intoxication or dangerous situations.
Anyone who is mature enough to be drinking alcohol should be mature enough to ensure they don't exceed safe levels of consumption. If they aren't able to do that then they just simply shouldn't drink.
The blame cannot be put on the bar staff or security staff for a grown adult not knowing their limits.

Nobody is asking for a babysitter, just a little decency is all .......... if that's too much to ask from some individuals working within the Industry, which it seems to be, then so be it ......... thank God there is a few good ones though that don't share your point of view.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

it is not my responsibility to babysit every customer and make sure they don't go over their limit.

nobody is saying it is though.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sure, I would look out for the signs and cut someone off if they were worse for wear. But other than that, sorry, not my problem.

it's doubley not the problem of everyone else however.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The blame cannot be put on the bar staff or security staff for a grown adult not knowing their limits.

nobody is saying they are to blame for that though.
however, if they simply chuck someone on the street then they can be blamed for trying to make it someone elses problem. it's definitely not my job as a randomer if i happen to be passing by to clean up the mess (i wouldn't do it anyway)
it's not the job of the emergency services to clean up the mess.
especially when these establishments via their association are trying to use the safety and health arguments to bring in anti-competitive laws to benefit them at the expence of everyone else. sorry but while that happens pubs and clubs will get no sympathy from me and if they want to use the safety argument to bull**** their way to getting protectionism then they can live up to the responsibility. they don't want the responsibility, ask for all laws that restrict drinks outlets to be removed.
i'm only holding clubs and pubs responsible for living up to what they say themselves in an aim to get the government to bring in protectionist policies. that is all.

end of the road

leggo wrote: »

If you get yourself into a state, you shouldn't expect a business to be forced to take responsibility for you.

well i hardly drink now so it will never effect me, + i never drank hugely anyway.
but on the general point, if that business is receiving huge protectionism from the government then i absolutely have a right to expect they have some duty of care to not expect strangers to pick up the mess after a drunk person. if the drunk is violent, that business can call the emergencie services. the drunk person doesn't have the right to expect the business to do anything, but the emergency services who have enough to do have the right to expect them to do something, and i as a tax payer who funds the emergency services expects those businesses not to be able to dump people on the street and expect the emergency services to clean up the mess.
sorry but if these businesses want protection from the government, and are using the safety argument as a method to get such protections, then they should be obligated to live up to it. if they forgo those protections, then it would be legitimate to say they have no responsibility.

leggo wrote: »

If you buy a litre of vodka from Tesco and drink it all in one at home, is it the Tesco till attendant's responsibility for serving it to you? It's a ridiculous argument to make.

it's not a valid comparison. and it's not a ridiculous argument, as we aren't dealing with normal businesses here, but ones who receive huge protectionism from government, who are the most protected and pampered industry in the world.

SusieBlue

MadDog76 wrote: »

Nobody is asking for a babysitter, just a little decency is all .......... if that's too much to ask from some individuals working within the Industry, which it seems to be, then so be it ......... thank God there is a few good ones though that don't share your point of view.

Define decency though? I don't understand your point? I've already said its bad form to turf someone out on the street alone, but I don't think it's realistic or fair to expect another adult to monitor your own alcohol consumption and make the judgment when they think you've had enough. It should be up to the individual to decide that.
Frankly there aren't enough staff to go round to ensure each patron is monitored and hasn't exceeded their limit.
Would you even want to be monitored? I know I wouldn't. Because I'm an adult and responsible for my own actions. And the consequences of my actions when I get myself into that condition are on me, nobody else.

leggo

end of the road wrote: »

well i hardly drink now so it will never effect me, + i never drank hugely anyway.
but on the general point, if that business is receiving huge protectionism from the government then i absolutely have a right to expect they have some duty of care to not expect strangers to pick up the mess after a drunk person. if the drunk is violent, that business can call the emergencie services. the drunk person doesn't have the right to expect the business to do anything, but the emergency services who have enough to do have the right to expect them to do something, and i as a tax payer who funds the emergency services expects those businesses not to be able to dump people on the street and expect the emergency services to clean up the mess.
sorry but if these businesses want protection from the government, and are using the safety argument as a method to get such protections, then they should be obligated to live up to it. if they forgo those protections, then it would be legitimate to say they have no responsibility.

it's not a valid comparison. and it's not a ridiculous argument, as we aren't dealing with normal businesses here, but ones who receive huge protectionism from government, who are the most protected and pampered industry in the world.

You're making this about something COMPLETELY different now, and it's clear you just want to have a rant and are using the OP's situation to tenuously link it to your own pet peeve. We get it, you don't think nightclubs should get protection from the government, but this is a thread about one girl who got left on a bunch of kegs by bouncers because she was too drunk. One (tenuous-sounding in itself) incident where nobody was affected beyond mild inconvenience does not call into question of whether the government should protect these businesses. That's a non-factor in this discussion.

What you're suggesting is that nightclubs should be responsible for every overly drunk patron on their premises. Let's say the government joins in with that, what message is that sending? "Go out and drink as much as you like, it'll be grand, we've got you covered."

No, I'd much rather live in a world where it's like, "You could be absolutely ****ed and ruin your life in one night if you don't watch what you drink. Be smart, know your limits." If you nanny people, they'll just become entitled idiots. Incentivise cop-on and responsibility, because what you're suggesting is neither practical nor likely to lead to better results, you just end up with more drunk idiots being more unsafe with themselves.

end of the road

leggo wrote: »

You're making this about something COMPLETELY different now, and it's clear you just want to have a rant and are using the OP's situation to tenuously link it to your own pet peeve. We get it, you don't think nightclubs should get protection from the government, but this is a thread about one girl who got left on a bunch of kegs by bouncers because she was too drunk. One (tenuous-sounding in itself) incident where nobody was affected beyond mild inconvenience does not call into question of whether the government should protect these businesses. That's a non-factor in this discussion.

What you're suggesting is that nightclubs should be responsible for every overly drunk patron on their premises. Let's say the government joins in with that, what message is that sending? "Go out and drink as much as you like, it'll be grand, we've got you covered."

No, I'd much rather live in a world where it's like, "You could be absolutely ****ed and ruin your life in one night if you don't watch what you drink. Be smart, know your limits." If you nanny people, they'll just become entitled idiots. Incentivise cop-on and responsibility, because what you're suggesting is neither practical nor likely to lead to better results, you just end up with more drunk idiots being more unsafe with themselves.

oh but it's not a non-factor in the discussion and i'm afraid it is linked to the discussion. the VFI always tell us how we have to be encouraged back into pubs to drink as they know how much drink to give and they are the only safe place for people to drink. i'm just suggesting that maybe they should be made to live up to their claims if they are going to make such dubious claims.
look it ultimately doesn't effect me anyway as i don't visit pubs or clubs and haven't for a good while. but if soundbites are going to be used the soundbite makers should be made to either live up to them, or their protection be removed to institute a level playing field in terms of drink sails where the market decides.
essentially my argument is, they make the claims, they should be made to live up to them or those claims thrown out and the government stop pandering to them and protecting them.

Big Bag of Chips

Ok, so say the club has a responsibility to a very drunk person? What is that responsibility?

Not let them get very drunk? (So limit everyone's drink consumption because it would be impossible/discriminatory to pick and choose?)
Call the guards?
Call an ambulance?
Call a taxi?
Call their mammy?
Let them sit it out to sober up?

What if a person shows up at a club door too pissed/out of it to stand properly? What is their responsibility there?

Call the guards?
Ambulance?
Mammy?
Let them in to snooze it off?

And where does that stop? Do you let people know they can go out, get off their face and someone else will take responsibility for them and facilitate their carry on? A&Es all over the country are filled every weekend with 'regulars' who drink too much, fall over and ring an ambulance to come get them.