gold coast bashing victim

[grazza]

KK, I guess that's why this is a problem. It's viewed as a shit, no skill job for boof heads rather than a complex job requiring professional skills and deserving decent pay. And the clubs/hotels idea of suitability for the job is tatts and big guns.

It's the clubs and hotels that need to step up and take responsibility for keeping safe the people whose intoxication they quite happily make money out of. If that means paying decent money so they don't get monkeys on on the dor, then that's the price of being in business.

Slowman, thanks for the advice. I'm not a lawyer at all, but from my reading it seems like the issues are:

1 - is the relationship between the bouncer and the club really a contracting relationship, or is the bouncer an employee relationship in disguise? If yes, then the club is vicariously liable.

2 - even if the relationship between the club and the bouncer is a contract, is this a delegable duty of care? i.e. can they offload this?

Law is kinda fun, eh?

[Slowman]

It's the clubs and hotels that need to step up and take responsibility for keeping safe the people whose intoxication they quite happily make money out of. If that means paying decent money so they don't get monkeys on on the dor, then that's the price of being in business.

There might need to new regulation requiring a certain number of security supervisors who paid and trained professionally to make sure the rest do the right thing. Precisely the price of business.

1 - is the relationship between the bouncer and the club really a contracting relationship, or is the bouncer an employee relationship in disguise? If yes, then the club is vicariously liable. There is also the concept of agency that might be fruitful too.

2 - even if the relationship between the club and the bouncer is a contract, is this a delegable duty of care? i.e. can they offload this?

I should have made it clearer before that I was talking about 2 different possible actions here; assault (civil not criminal, the crown will look after criminal matter) and negligence. Yes if the contracts were all just a sham so it was really that the bouncer was an employee of the club then the club could be vicariously liable for the assault, but as always it is a matter of facts and circumstances.

The club has a prima facie duty of care to its patrons. In the case of an action for negligence (of that duty) you would sue the club, as Shaunm said. The club would then try to use the fact that they'd contracted out the work to a security firm as a defence. Whether that is successful as a defence depends again on the circumstances. If for example, they knew the security people were dodgy, or never bothered to check their qualifications and license then they could still be negligent. You can contract out your responsibilties but not your liability. So if you didn't do it correctly or properly, the existence of a contract won't save you from being liable.

Now, the damages you can claim under QLD Criminal Offence Victims Act 1995 are for the assault. Damages for the negiigence would be a separate calculation. The quantum and the way they would calculate them and how the 2 claims would affect each others claim I don't know but a specialist would be able to help you there. Some will give you an initial consultation free and others will charge no fees if you they lose but you might still be liable for the other party's costs if the court awards them costs. However that should only really happen if your case had little merit to begin with and that would usually mean the lawyer wouldn't take it on in the first place.

Law is kinda fun, eh?

Kind of (when it works out) but not as much fun as surfing. It is an imperfect attempt to make things right after they've gone wrong.