A hotel occupier's duty of care to protect patrons from intoxicated third parties requires knowledge (actual or constructive) of the aggressive character of the intoxicated person, based on known characteristics or conduct on the occasion in question; the mere fact of intoxication does not give rise to a duty to take immediate steps to remove the person. Where the immediate trigger for an assault is the provocative conduct of the plaintiff's spouse, causation requires analysis of whether reasonable steps by the bar manager would have prevented the assault, including the possibility that the provocative conduct would have occurred regardless. Inconsistent findings of liability in separate proceedings involving independent causes of action do not constitute an abuse of process.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 17 later cases that cite this judgment.
3 of the 17 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.