Karen O’Sullivan investigates vicarious liability
Practitioners may recall Mattis v Pollock [2003] EWCA Civ 887, [2003] All ER (D) 10 (Jul) where the doorman of a nightclub went home to get a knife to stab one of the club’s customers after an earlier altercation. It was held that the club was vicariously liable for those actions, despite the perpetrator going well outside the scope of his duties when he launched the attack.
Differing issues
A recent Court of Appeal case brought Mattis to mind. The facts were similar but the legal issues were quite different. In Everett & Harrison v Comojo [2011] EWCA Civ 13, [2011] All ER (D) 106 (Jan) the claimants visited an exclusive private members club.
While they enjoyed a drink there was a minor incident with a waitress, K, which was witnessed by a regular member of the club (B). He considered that the claimants owed K an apology which did not materialise. Although K wanted to move on from the incident B was determined to get her an apology. Nearly
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
