Introduction
In cases of patron on patron violence, courts have generally held that an occupier of licensed premises will be liable for an assault where it has reason to anticipate the assault and fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it; for example, by engaging a sufficient number of security personnel or ejecting a patron where they are displaying signs of violent or disruptive behaviour. Conversely, an occupier will not be liable for an assault where it could not reasonably have anticipated the assault in time to prevent the occurrence. Although the case of Packer v Tall Ships Sailing Cruises1 did not involve a hotelier, the Queensland Supreme Court followed previous case law and held that the occupier of a cruise ship was not liable for a sudden, unprovoked and unpredictable assault committed by one patron on another
Contact: Ryan Stehlik, Senior Associate and Jessica Schaffer, Solicitor; Carter Newell (Queensland, Australia)
Introduction
In cases of patron on patron violence, courts have generally held that an occupier of licensed premises will be liable for an assault where it has reason to anticipate the assault and fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it; for example, by engaging a sufficient number of security personnel or ejecting a patron where they are displaying signs of violent or disruptive behaviour. Conversely, an occupier will not be liable for an assault where it could not reasonably have anticipated the assault in time to prevent the occurrence. Although the case of Packer v Tall Ships Sailing Cruises1 did not involve a hotelier, the Queensland Supreme Court followed previous case law and held that the occupier of a cruise ship was not liable for a sudden, unprovoked and unpredictable assault committed by one patron on another.
To read teh full article click here, or visit www.carternewell.com
