Question

Contemporary Canadian Business Law , Chapter 4 (Pg. 78) Case 4

A university operated a tavern on its premises for the benefit of its students. One student, who attended the tavern with some friends for the purpose of celebrating the end of the fall semester, became quite drunk. The tavern bartenders realized that the student was drunk around 11:00 p.m. and refused to serve him any additional alcoholic beverages. They also asked him to leave the premises. The student, however, remained and drank two additional beers that were purchased for him by his friends. Some time later, around 12 a.m., one of the bartenders noticed the student drinking and instructed the tavern bouncer to ask the student to leave. The bouncer did so, but the student refused, and the bouncer took the student by the arm and escorted him to the door. Along the hallway to the door the student was abusive and resisted leaving, but the bouncer managed to eject him from the building. A few minutes later, the student returned to the tavern and slipped by the doorman for the alleged
purpose of obtaining an explanation as to why he had been ejected. About eight feet from the door, he was apprehended by the bouncer and once again expelled from the tavern, but not without some resistance in the form of pushing and shoving and abusive language on the part of the student. In the course of ejection, the student fell against the door and smashed a glass pane in the door, which caused severe lacerations to his hand. The injury to the student’s hand required medical treatment and took several months to heal. The student brought an action against the university and the bouncer, claiming damages and claiming as well that the injury he received caused him to fail his mathematics course in the semester that followed the accident. Discuss the issues raised in this case and the various arguments that each party might raise. Render a decision.

Answer 1

*****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please*****

The major issues in this case are whether the student had been injured as a result of the university and tavern bouncer's negligence or intentional harm,whether the university and the tarvern bouncer are legally liable for the injury and whether there was no one to take responsibility for the accident.

Explanation:

In all jurisdictions, the management is legally mandated to maintain the right of admission for as long as the reason for denial are not racially or gender wise motivated. In this case,the student was drunk and the tavern staff in abiding by good faith and due care for customers refiused to sell the student more drinks. By ejecting the student for over drinking,the tavern management and the bouncer was on the right and did not breach any of the student's rights. However,snicking back into the bar even after being ejected was the student's fault and whatever happened to him was as a result of his own misconduct and negligence because he was not pushed in any case by the bouncer. In addition,the tavern refused to sell more alcohol as a show of good faith and taking care of customers. Therefore,the injury suffered by the student was as a result of his own fault and he cannot demand damages from the tavern or the university. This is because the university and tavern will argue that they took the necessary due care and acted in good faith but the student went ahead on his own. The student on the other hand could argue that the injury suffered was caused by the way the bouncer treated him and therfore the bouncer who was acting on the management instructions should bear liablity and pay damages. In law of tort,contributory negligence does not attract a lot of damages and therefore the university and the tavern should asssist cover for the medical bill alone.

*****Please please please LIKE THIS ANSWER, so that I can get a small benefit, Please*****