 |
|
 |
| ||
 |
|
 |
Excerpts from this article first published in Human Resources Magazine, Issue 112, 5 September 2006
In Ryan v Ann St Holdings Pty Ltd [2006] QCA 217, the Queensland Court of Appeal upheld a vicarious liability finding against the owner of a nightclub in relation to the unprovoked assault on a patron by one of its security guards.
After leaving a night club, Mr Ryan and a friend stood on the footpath outside the premises talking for a time. A short time later, Mr Aperu, a security guard employed by the nightclub owner, approached the two men and persuaded them to re-enter the nightclub on the pretext that a friend needed assistance leaving. Once inside the club, Mr Aperu swore at Mr Ryan’s friend and hit him in the face three times, in an apparently unprovoked attack. Mr Aperu punched Mr Ryan on the right side of his face. Mr Ryan was knocked to the ground where he lay unconscious for a short period of time.
Not long after, the duty manager of the nightclub approached a group of security guards standing near Mr Ryan to enquire what had happened. He was told that Mr Ryan had simply slipped over. Mr Ryan was then picked up from the floor and pushed out on to the footpath.
The Court found that the nightclub owner, as Mr Aperu’s employer, was liable for the assault on Mr Ryan, since Mr Aperu’s actions were closely connected with the scope of his employment. In the absence of a position description for the security guard’s job, the Court assumed that the duties of the security guard were to prevent any rowdy patron from harming the nightclub, its staff and other patrons. Mr Aperu was authorised by his employer to use reasonable force in the course of his employment, and his employer did not place a limit on the amount of force that he could use in carrying out his duties. Mr Aperu was ostensibly carrying out his duties as a security guard when he invited Mr Ryan to re-enter the nightclub, albeit under a false pretext. As a result, Mr Aperu’s employer was liable for the assault on Mr Ryan, even though Mr Aperu acted contrary to his employment obligations.
The Court refused to overturn the $37,502 in personal injury damages awarded against the employer.
