The Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club - Case Study Example

Server Liability Name Tutor’s Name Course Number Day, Month, Year Server Liability Many are the organizations are liable for patrons in cases where liquor is served. The forms of liquor liability include the liability as the individual who was serving the consumers past the point that they got tipsy and finally intoxicated, the liability as an occupier which entails the individual, organizations, companies or any other organization that has the ownership, has responsibility of possession of premises that have the responsibility for the protection of individuals on their sites for any harm, the liability as an employer concerning employees consuming alcohol in places such as at staff or official parties and finally the liability as the sponsor of activities that can be potentially dangerous when an individual is intoxicated (Ronald 1997). It’s also vital to note that under the liquor legal liability, any use of excessive force that can lead to bodily harm on the consumers or on the patrons who are intoxicated by the security employees is much unnecessary and therefore not allowed (Michael 2007). However, despite these server liabilities, i do not agree with the fact that “If a customer gets intoxicated, leaves a restaurant or bar, and subsequently injures him or herself, the premise that served the Alcohol should be liable.” The Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club case The Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club (2004) is an Australian server liability case that was justified in favor of the above statement entailing the liability of organization that served the liquor. In the above case that pertained Mrs. Cole and the south tweed heads rugby league club. The high court in Australia was granted a chance to come up with a solution in this case whereby the circumstances involved a provider of alcohol on a commercial basis that owned the responsibility to patron on the premise to take the required steps to avoid the patron from causing injuries to himself as a result of the effects caused by intoxication. The complainant by the name Rosalie Cole had attended the accused club on the day that the accident happened to her. According to the gathered evidence, Mrs. Cole was said to have consumed approximately eight glasses of alcohol brand namely spumante between 9. 30 and 10.30 in the morning, she then proceeded to share a bottle of wine with her friends. At around 3pm in the afternoon, the club denied her more services as a result of what they termed as uncontrolled behaviors as a result of intoxication from the served liquor at the club. She was asked to leave the club premises at around 6 pm in the evening by the club’s manager. At this time she was said to be in company of other two men who were sober. However, the under the clubs rules offered Mrs. Cole a means of transport from the club to take her home due to her condition at that specific time. She rejected the courtesy bus and the manager insisted that he hires a taxi to take her home but she declined this offer too. The male individuals who were in her company were said to have told the manager of the club to leave them alone as she was in good and caring hands of the men. Unluckily, the complainant was run down by a passing car a short while after they had left the South Tweed Heads Rugby League Club premises. Mrs. Cole suffered serious injuries from the accident and decided to sue the manager of the club and as well as the driver of the car that run her down for carelessness. The judge under this trial concluded that the clubs as liable to negligence but the damages were allocated between the driver of the car, the complainant and the club. Afterwards, the New South Wales Court of Appeal permitted an appeal that was made by the club In reflection to the findings that the club had ownership of the complainant the responsibility of protecting her from any risk or bodily harm that could be as a result behaviors that were associated from the excess consumption of alcohol in that precise club (Stuart 2005, pp. 78). The judge’s conclusion was that the only period that the club was liable to the care of the complainant was by the time they served her alcohol for the second time while it was to their information that she was already intoxicated. The alcohol sold to her was in unspecified quantities despite her not sober state. By 12.30 she was already drank yet the club served her alcohol again. Therefore, the judge ruled that the club’s breach of responsibilities was the main cause of the accident to Cole despite the offers made by the club to offer transportation via the courtesy bus or hires a taxi for her (Michael 2007) In this case the high court by a majority decision of 4-2 supported the decision that as made by the New South Wales Court of Appeal. This was due to the fact that despite the denial that there existed responsibility to care for Mrs. Cole, there was no clear expression of the circumstances that she was supposed to receive the care. According to the majority decisions, there exist no circumstances under which the responsibility of care capacity by the alcohol supplier to a customer to the protection of he or she from the confliction of personal injuries. According to the chief justice of this case, the law makes people who are drunk to be responsible for them unless in rare cases occasions. Despite the fact that the patron has some of the liabilities of being taken care of, such responsibilities do not and can not go beyond the risks that are as a result of the intoxication due to much consumption of alcohol. As a matter of much too much of care and responsibilities on the consumer would be interference of his private life since the patron is supposed to be a mature individual. On the other hand, it is very impossible for the server of the alcohol drink to control the behaviors of the large numbers of patrons who might be misbehaving as a result of too much of drink (Robert 1990). In short, it is not an appropriate and possible manner for the bartender or waiter to confirm from the consumer when serving the ordered alcoholic drinks how much they will be consuming and the activities and behaviors that they think are likely to be engaged in (Michael 2007). The Parrington v Hotelcorp P/L (2003) case This is another case involving the server liabilities of a liquor provider and a consumer. Parrington sued the hotelcorp pub where she had been consuming alcohol a short time before her car crashed to a tree. The complaiant by the name Parringhton was seriously injured and accused the club of negligence against the manager and owner of the hotelcorp pub in claims that they had violated a general care that was liable to her. The complainant accused the club owner of letting her go home on her own via denying her a safe means of transport home. The club was aware of her situation due to the fact that the compliant is said to have borrowed some money from the clubs' manager to continue drinking at the same premises (Stuart 2005). The Supreme Court listened to all the evidences presented by the complaints and the defendants. In the case proceedings, several witnesses testified that the plaintiff looked much affected by the intoxication of alcohol. However, there were no clear indications that the intoxication was the cause of the cause of her being out of control according to the witnesses (Michael 2007). The court ruled in favor of the defendant, on my own standpoint, the ruling fair. This is due to the fact that there was no breach of the role of caring for the complainant by the defendant. In addition, the intoxication of the complainant was deliberate as it’s evident in the situation where she borrowed money from the manager of the hotelcorp club. Therefore, this is an implication that the complainant was responsible for her excessive drinking since it is clear to her what she was doing via borrowing of money from the manager of that club (Michael 2007). The Johns v Cosgrove Case (1997) This in one of the few cases that the plaintiffs have successfully won their alcohol service liability laws against the providers of alcohols at the time of the intoxication, in his case the plaintiff was regular at a club to an extent that he got intoxicated. The complainant left the premises late at night and de to his unstable state he got into an accident and sustained serious injuries. He sued the premises that served the liquor and the driver of the car that hit him on the argument she should have slowed down. The complainant was successful in his case. The judge of this case state that it was not negligence of the defendant to serve the complainant with alcohol to the point of his intoxication. However, it was the served alcohol at that premise that caused a level of intoxication that led to incapacity for self preservation of the plaintiff whereas it was evident that he was likely to get into dangerous ad risky situations. I agree with the judgment made by the judge due to the fact that the premises continued to serve alcohol to the defendant aware of his intoxicated situation and this was a major contributor to the accident that was encountered by complainants on his way home. In addition, the management of the club did nothing to ensure that the plaintiff got a safe way home such as provision of a mean of safe transport. This was an act of negligence by the club management (Stuart 2005). Rosser v Vintage Nominees (1998) case This is another server liability case which the plaintiff has ever won against the defendant, the judge of the WA District court found the management and staffs of the premises guilty of negligence. This is due to the fact that they served a car salesman too much alcohol that led his intoxication; as a result he had an accident on his way home. The judgment was made on the ground of negligence since the defendant made no attempt to offer the complainant a safe mode of transport home despite the defendant’s awareness of the complainant’s complicated situation(Michael 2007).. Insurance Commission v Joyce (1948) This is a server liability case whereby the complainant was driven recklessly by an intoxicated driver and as a result the car ran into a stationary truck and finally into fence. The complaint was seeking compensation from the insurance company. The complainant was the passenger in this accident as he was being driven by another companion, he was seriously injured in this accident, however, examinations were carried out on both of them and they were found drunk. The decision of the high court judge was the denial of the charges filed by the passenger, the complainants lost the case. The judge gave the right ruling due to the fact that the plaintiff voluntary decided to get into a vehicle that was driven by an intoxicated individual. The plaintiff knew that it is illegal for an intoxicated individual to drive and for that reason was aware of the dangers and risks of doings so (Michael 2007).. Conclusion After a critical review of the server liability law in the above case, i do not agree and he same time agree with the fact that “If a customer gets intoxicated, leaves a restaurant or bar, and subsequently injures him or herself, the premise that served the Alcohol should be liable. The judgment of the liability of the alcohol provider depends on several facts, in cases where it was the compliant was conscious of the effects of much drinking and denies the offer provided by the club management in the acct of care, then he or she is responsible of the outcomes of the intoxication and not the club. However, in cases where the club management continues to serve alcohol to an individual and in the state of intoxication show no concern of safe transport home, In case the individual gets an accident under the influence of the intoxication, then the club is liable for the act of negligence. Reference List Lawrence, J 2003, Handbook of loss prevention and crime prevention, Diane Publishers, New York. Michael, B 2007, Private law in theory and practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford Robert, J 1990, Alcohol awareness and server liability, developing and implementing an alcohol awareness program for food service operations, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge . Ronald, S 1997, Practitioner's guide to liquor liability litigation. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Stuart, M 2005, Exploring tort law, Diane Publishers. London. Read More