Frolics Or Authorised Acts?

In the recent cases of Sprod v Public Relations Oriented Security Pty Limited [2007] NSWCA 319 and Elite Protective Personnel Pty Limited v Salmon [2007] NSWCA 322, the NSW Court of Appeal dealt with issues arising from the excessive use of force by security guards. The cases, although quite different, demonstrate some of the difficulties faced by employers where an employee acts outside the acceptable scope of his or her duties.

Sprod v Public Relations

The issue in this case was whether the employer of two bouncers who assaulted the plaintiff, Sprod, was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees.

In December 2001, security guards employed by Public Relations Oriented Security (PROS) were called to assist the owner of a pizza shop. The pizza shop was near a licensed club where the PROS employees worked as bouncers. An arrangement had been reached where the owner of the pizza shop could seek assistance from the security guards in times of trouble.

On the night in question, Sprod was in the pizza shop. He was drunk and being abusive and offensive to female patrons. The security staff was called and Sprod was escorted from the pizza shop and asked by the security guards to leave. When Sprod failed to leave, two of the four security guards took him down a nearby alley way and 'kicked his head in'.

Sprod was hospitalised for almost four months and was left with permanent brain damage.

Trial

At first instance, the Supreme Court held that the actions of the security guards were not in the course of their employment:

'That brutal and vicious assault was not for the purpose of subduing him. It was so severe and unnecessary that it was motivated by the blood lust of the security officers involved. I would therefore hold the assault upon the [plaintiff] by the security guards was not...