Case Note In The Court Of Appeal Decision Of Rooty Hill RSL Club Ltd v Karimi [2009] NSWCA 2

In Brief

This case considered the duty of a licensed club to protect its

patrons from the tortious or criminal conduct of fellow patrons and

what is reasonably required to discharge that duty.

Background Circumstances

The plaintiff, Tarique Karimi, suffered serious injury

including brain damage when he was king hit by an intoxicated

patron of the Rooty Hill RSL Club ("the Club"), Michael

Smith.

Earlier that evening the plaintiff and Mr Smith had been

engaged in an altercation. Both were evicted from the club by

security guards employed by Allied Security Group Ltd

("Allied").

Allied staff managed the removal of both groups. Mr Smith and

his girlfriend left by the front eastern entrance. At the time of

the departure Mr Smith and Ms Cameron told security guards that

they intended to go home. They were observed by a security guard

driving out of the front car-park. This information was then

conveyed to the security staff at the western entrance who then

invited the plaintiff and his companions to leave. The plaintiff

and his group left by the rear western entrance.

Ms Cameron then drove Mr Smith into the western car-park. As

the plaintiff walked through the car-park Mr Smith ran up to him

and king hit him with sufficient force to knock him backwards to

the ground.

Supreme Court Proceedings

The plaintiff brought proceedings by his tutor in negligence

against the Club and Allied, and in trespass to the person against

Mr Smith.

The Club cross-claimed against Allied and Mr Smith. Mr Smith

did not enter an appearance nor did he take any part in the primary

proceedings.

At the trial it was not in issue that the Club was subject to a

duty to exercise reasonable care arising out of the intoxicated or

dangerous condition of its patrons, and that duty extended to the

protection of a patron while he was on or departing from the

premises.

Similarly, Allied accepted that it owed a duty by reason of its

provision of security services at the Club to exercise reasonable

care to avoid one patron injuring another in circumstances where it

knew or had constructive knowledge that the patron was a potential

source of danger.

His Honour held that the Club and Allied could have discharged

the duty they owed to the plaintiff by taking the following three

measures:

Monitoring the entrances to the western car park to restrain Mr

Smith from re-entering;

Staggering the interval between the plaintiff's departure

and Mr Smith's departure by a longer period; and

Providing a...