Locations
The High Court recently considered the adequacy of security systems in a personal injuries claim by Tasha Fitzsimons against Templeville Developments Limited who were the operators of a well-known nightclub in Clontarf – Barcode.
Ms Fitzsimons alleged that the nightclub failed to adequately supervise the nightclub, failed to have appropriate security staff available to supervise the venue and that the nightclub failed to ensure that other revellers were admitted without excess alcohol or given additional alcohol while in the nightclub.
On 22 December 2008, the Plaintiff suffered a cut to her forehead and a fracture to her left elbow after she fell from the shoulders of another reveller, Mr Andrew Kellett.
The Plaintiff and her witnesses alleged that Mr Kellett was highly intoxicated and that his behaviour caused the Plaintiff to sustain the injuries.
Mr Kellett and his witnesses alleged that while Mr Kellett was at the bar, he had his back turned to Ms Fitzsimons and that Ms Fitzsimons began climbing on Mr Kellett’s back. It was at this point that Mr Kellett alleges that he lost his footing, fell forward, thus causing Ms Fitzsimons to also fall forward, injuring her head and elbow.
The security staff, supervisor and general manager on behalf of Barcode provided evidence that while the Plaintiff was in a distressed state following the accident, the Plaintiff had admitted to various staff members that “she had been messing with Andrew Kellett and had fallen”. Ms Fitzsimons denied making this statement.
It is important to note that Mr Kellett was not a party to the proceedings and the allegations made were solely against the nightclub.
An analysis of the security provisions in place on the night was undertaken by the High Court. This included a review of the number of security staff on duty, the number of nightclub goers, CCTV monitoring and the protocol and procedures in relation to assessing would-be revellers seeking to gain entry to the nightclub.
The High Court provided a useful review of the law which stated that the nightclub did have a duty of care to the Plaintiff to take reasonable steps to ensure her safety while on the premises – what was reasonable depends on the facts of the particular case. The High Court relied on the judgment of Reynolds v Woodman Inns Limited which provided that it is not reasonable to impose a burden on a nightclub, to in every instance observe the actions of each patron on an ongoing basis.
In this case, the High Court was satisfied that the overall security system in the nightclub was good. It had specialist security staff who were all fully licenced and had a dedicated CCTV operator in place to monitor the 16 fixed cameras and 4 panning cameras.
The Court stated that a finding of negligence against the nightclub in the circumstances of this case would be too high a standard of care to impose.
The Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed.
A full copy of the decision can be located here.
Tasha Fitzsimons v Templeville Developments Limited t/a Barcode, 2015 IEHC 784.