The High Court dismissed Alan Reynolds’s negligence claim against the company operating Ruby’s Nightclub, finding he had not proved that it breached its duty of care before another patron assaulted him in 2005.
Mr Justice Michael Peart delivered judgment on 18 November 2009. The claim was against Woodman Inns Limited, trading as Ruby’s Nightclub. A second defendant, John O’Regan, was identified in the judgment as the person who assaulted Mr Reynolds. He had not entered an appearance, and no relief was being sought against him at that stage.
The assault happened at about 12.30am on 3 October 2005. Mr Reynolds had arrived at the Waterford city nightclub with friends after drinks at Muldoon’s pub. He said Mr O’Regan suddenly head-butted him, knocking him down, and continued the attack until a friend intervened. The judgment described the assault as unprovoked and lasting seconds.
Mr Reynolds was hospitalised with three cheekbone fractures and underwent surgery to insert a plate. The operation left a scar running from his left ear over the top of his head. He continued to experience tingling or numbness on the left side of his face, which the judge considered likely to be permanent.
The negligence claim focused on whether the nightclub operator should have recognised a risk and removed Mr O’Regan before the assault. Gary O’Gorman, who was at the club separately, testified that he had seen Mr O’Regan jostling people and acting aggressively shortly beforehand. The judge accepted his evidence. But he also noted that the assault followed only a short time after Mr O’Gorman first noticed that behaviour, and there was no evidence that staff had been alerted to it or received a complaint.
The company’s general manager said 12 security staff were assigned to Ruby’s that night and were trained. The judge found the premises adequately staffed. The CCTV footage began after the incident started and did not show the initial assault or the earlier behaviour described by Mr O’Gorman. The manager said he had retained footage he considered relevant to the incident.
The judge found no evidence supporting the pleaded allegation that the company served alcohol to an intoxicated patron, and no evidence that Mr O’Regan was intoxicated. He said a venue must take reasonable steps for patrons’ safety, but is not required to monitor every patron continuously or anticipate every sudden attack. Even if security staff had seen the unusual and aggressive behaviour, the judge was not satisfied that it required Mr O’Regan’s removal.
The court dismissed the claim against the company because Mr Reynolds had not established negligence. The judgment expressed sympathy for his serious injury but made no award against the company.