Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
Glassed in bar
Hi, I was recently glassed in an unprovoked attack at a late night bar which has caused me the loss of sight in my left eye. No one was caught for the offence. Am I able to sue the pub chain for negligence?
Reasons being:-
1) The bouncers let the only witness leave without getting contact details because the pub was closing.
2) The pub was serving glass instead of plastic after midnight as part of its licence.
3) There were no bouncers inside the pub at the time of the incident,
4) There seemed to be no training to the bar-staff or door-staff on how to deal with such an incident.
I know a lot about the pub and its licence as it was managed previously by a friend and I think they have a case to answer.
Thanks
DAVE
Reasons being:-
1) The bouncers let the only witness leave without getting contact details because the pub was closing.
2) The pub was serving glass instead of plastic after midnight as part of its licence.
3) There were no bouncers inside the pub at the time of the incident,
4) There seemed to be no training to the bar-staff or door-staff on how to deal with such an incident.
I know a lot about the pub and its licence as it was managed previously by a friend and I think they have a case to answer.
Thanks
DAVE
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DaveyboyG. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
1: Bouncers have no powers to require witnesses to remain on the premises or to get contact details from them. (So there's no negligence there).
2: There might be a case for making a claim for contributory negligence but you'd have a long battle and you'd probably not get much money.
3: 'Bouncers' are usually employed specifically to control entry to the premises. There is no obligation upon the bar owners to have security staff inside the premises. (So no negligence).
4: It would be unreasonable to expect bar staff to have specific training in how to deal with such incidents. As stated, there was no obligation upon the bar to have bouncers inside the premises. (Again, no negligence).
Suing the bar owners would probably provide little benefit to anyone other than lawyers for each side. It would be far better to simply submit a claim to CICA:
http://www.cica.gov.uk/
Chris
2: There might be a case for making a claim for contributory negligence but you'd have a long battle and you'd probably not get much money.
3: 'Bouncers' are usually employed specifically to control entry to the premises. There is no obligation upon the bar owners to have security staff inside the premises. (So no negligence).
4: It would be unreasonable to expect bar staff to have specific training in how to deal with such incidents. As stated, there was no obligation upon the bar to have bouncers inside the premises. (Again, no negligence).
Suing the bar owners would probably provide little benefit to anyone other than lawyers for each side. It would be far better to simply submit a claim to CICA:
http://www.cica.gov.uk/
Chris
You would generally need to establish three things to prove negligence:
1. That a duty of care exists;
2. That the standard of care fell below what could be reasonably expected; and,
3. That the harm was forseeable.
Chapters have been written on each of these points many, many times, possibly entire books. You need to consult a solicitor, but yes, I feel you may have a case, depending on the facts and circumstances known, and that may come to light. Your case for the points you made for 2 and 3 are especially interesting.
Your Point 3: If the bouncers were there the club could argue they took reasonable steps to observe the duty of care they undoubtedly owe you. The fact that they were not (if you can prove it) means that the standard of care fell. How low though?
Your Point 2: Plastic v. Glass.
Again, the standard of care seems to have fallen below what should be reasonably expected. Furthermore, in relation to my point 3 (forseeability), the fact that conditions had been imposed to serve drinks in plastic gives the hint that there has been a problem in the past. Has there been previous incidents of a similar nature i.e. 'glassings'. If so, your assault and injury was cerrtainly 'forseeable'. You may have a good case.
In addition, have you looked into Criminal Injuries Compensation? It seems likely that you would be able to submit a successful claim to CICA. http://www.cica.gov.uk/
Finally, I am very sorry to hear of the damage this attack has caused you. The very best of luck to you and I hope you can find justice.
1. That a duty of care exists;
2. That the standard of care fell below what could be reasonably expected; and,
3. That the harm was forseeable.
Chapters have been written on each of these points many, many times, possibly entire books. You need to consult a solicitor, but yes, I feel you may have a case, depending on the facts and circumstances known, and that may come to light. Your case for the points you made for 2 and 3 are especially interesting.
Your Point 3: If the bouncers were there the club could argue they took reasonable steps to observe the duty of care they undoubtedly owe you. The fact that they were not (if you can prove it) means that the standard of care fell. How low though?
Your Point 2: Plastic v. Glass.
Again, the standard of care seems to have fallen below what should be reasonably expected. Furthermore, in relation to my point 3 (forseeability), the fact that conditions had been imposed to serve drinks in plastic gives the hint that there has been a problem in the past. Has there been previous incidents of a similar nature i.e. 'glassings'. If so, your assault and injury was cerrtainly 'forseeable'. You may have a good case.
In addition, have you looked into Criminal Injuries Compensation? It seems likely that you would be able to submit a successful claim to CICA. http://www.cica.gov.uk/
Finally, I am very sorry to hear of the damage this attack has caused you. The very best of luck to you and I hope you can find justice.
Can't think this is runnable against the pub.Are we to argue that, if the attack had occurred one or five minutes before midnight, when glass was permitted, the pub is not liable but if it happened one or five minutes after, when glass was not permitted, it is? Not our best point, methinks!
That's quite apart from the nicety that the condition, if it still applied to this licence, could apply to the serving of fresh drinks after midnight only, and not to drinks served but still being consumed after midnight.Can't expect the bar staff to go round insisting that all drinks in glass glasses be decanted into plastic at one minute after midnight!
Can't see that plastic only after midnight is proof or evidence that dangerous fights after midnight are to be expected, either, to the extent that a publican allowing glass then is liable for negligence.
You'd need to go a lot farther than that, to get a claim home.
That's quite apart from the nicety that the condition, if it still applied to this licence, could apply to the serving of fresh drinks after midnight only, and not to drinks served but still being consumed after midnight.Can't expect the bar staff to go round insisting that all drinks in glass glasses be decanted into plastic at one minute after midnight!
Can't see that plastic only after midnight is proof or evidence that dangerous fights after midnight are to be expected, either, to the extent that a publican allowing glass then is liable for negligence.
You'd need to go a lot farther than that, to get a claim home.
1 to 7 of 7
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
ChatterBank18 mins ago
Body & Soul35 mins ago
Are Labour Preparing To Dump The P M ?
News38 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.