A witness observed the bouncers walking the plaintiff away from the pizza shop and then forcing him into an alleyway. A short time later the witness heard one of the returning bouncers say: “You won’t be having any more trouble from him tonight, he just had his head kicked in.” The plaintiff was then found unconscious in the alleyway in a pool of blood. He had been severely beaten about the head and was left permanently brain damaged.
Although no witnesses had directly observed the assault, the New South Wales Court of Appeal found that there was ample evidence to support a conclusion that the plaintiff was assaulted by the bouncers. However, the plaintiff claimed against the company that employed the bouncers rather than the bouncers themselves.
The Court found that an allegation of personal or direct negligence against the company could not be sustained. The Court considered it was sufficient that the company had ensured that each of the bouncers it employed had an appropriate licence and had been trained to use reasonable force only as a last resort.
The Court found that by ensuring that its employees were appropriately licensed and instructed, the company had discharged its duty of care to the plaintiff. The Court also found that the company was not vicariously liable for the acts of its employees. Although the removal of the plaintiff from the pizza shop was within the scope of the bouncers’ employment, the Court found that the bashing was so severe and unnecessary that it was motivated by the “blood lust” of the bouncers involved rather than for the purpose of subduing the plaintiff: Sprod v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited.
|
