BC Bars, can the owers be held accountable for fights?

Question

i am wondering if u could help me with a quesiton.

my boyfriend was leaving the bar last night with 2 friends, the friends went out first, then some guy out of the blue, decked my boyfriend and split his lip open(happended before he exited the bar), it's pretty bad, possibly may need stitches for sure.

then the bouncer/someone (we're not sure) picked him up and threw him out on the side walk.

this club is awful for fights and noone does anything about it.

can the bar be held accountable.

thank you

Answer 1

IF   he is old enough to drink in a bar,  then the should be old enough to  make good choices about where he drinks.

To answer your question. The owners of the bar do have a legal responsibility to maintain  order, but that does not mean that you bf has any legal recourse here.

Jim B. Toronto.

Answer 2

This is a great example of what is so wrong with the justice system in this country.  Try to place the blame on some party other than that party which is responsible.  The responsible party in this case is the person who decked your boyfriend "out of the blue."

Points to the other poster who pointed out that you and your boyfriend apparently know it is a dangerous place and went there anyway.  

Answer 3

Yes & No. In the scenario presented- No, they aren't responsible for the unexpected criminal acts of a third party. Like the Mason case below, the attack would be considered "unforeseeable" in the eyes of the courts.

That being said, bars, clubs, etc do have reasonable duty to remove or have removed any customer(s) or others who are causing a disturbance and/or placing others at risk. So they could potentially be found, at least partially, at fault if they failed to act. This is rather uncommon since all they have to do is call the police to remove the person(s) and they have met the requirements.

See also-

Bar Fight Raises Question of Premises Liability

http://seattle.injuryboard.com/property-...

"Instances such as this raise issues of premises liability and negligent security. Bar owners owe their patrons a duty to guard against known dangerous conditions. The Washington Supreme Court has held that landowners may be liable for failing to provide reasonable levels of security to protect their patrons from the criminal conduct of third parties."

Michigan Supreme Court Issues Three Significant Premises Liability Decisions

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Aug/1/12...

"The Michigan Supreme Court has recently made three separate significant premises liability rulings.

In the consolidated cases of Mason v Royal Dequindre, Inc., and Goodman v Fortner, the high court held that merchants can be liable in tort for failing to take reasonable measures to protect their invitees from harm caused by the criminal acts of third parties. Both cases involved injuries to patrons of bars. In Mason, the court found that the criminal attack upon the plaintiff was unforeseeable where the plaintiff was not a participant in a previous fight which involved his assailant.

...In Goodman, however, the court found that there was ample evidence that the defendant knew or should have known about an ongoing altercation because the plaintiff was personally threatened, the plaintiff had specifically requested the bars bouncers to call the police and when the bouncers opened the door to allow the plaintiff to leave, the assailants were visible, audible and yelling at the plaintiff."

- David

Answer 4

"this club is awful for fights" So you went there anyway, with full knowledge of the risk?

"out of the blue"?

"noone does anything about it" Don't go there!!

It's not the bars fault