THIS AUSTRALIAN GUY WOULD HAVE WON A BUNDLE IN AN AMERICAN COURT

But I agree with the verdict. People should not be blamed for what others do

Two bouncers bashed a man so violently he was permanently brain damaged, but their employer escaped liability because it did not authorise the assault, which occurred in a lane near the nightclub where they worked. Although one of the bouncers was a supervisor for the security company, legal responsibility virtually stopped at the doorway of the club, a court has ruled.

Gregory Sprod, 26, was shocked yesterday at losing the $1.4 million case in the NSW Supreme Court against Public Relations Oriented Security, which is in liquidation. He faces a hefty legal bill after he was also ordered to pay the company's costs.

The case highlights the extraordinary difficulties faced by people seeking compensation for injuries resulting from the actions of wayward employees, who are in legal terms on a "frolic of their own".

Mr Sprod was in hospital for six months after the incident on December 22, 2001. He was found in a pool of blood with cuts to his temple area in the lane near St Marys Band Club.

Yesterday Acting Justice Harvey Cooper said he was satisfied either Freddy Loau, the bouncer, and/or Gerald Hoskins, the supervisor, removed Mr Sprod from a pizza shop, which had a security arrangement with the club, and took him to the lane and assaulted him. But the company was not liable, Acting Justice Cooper said. "The conduct of taking him into the lane and viciously assaulting him about the head is not connected with any authorised method of doing their job," he said. "It would have been within the course of the employment of the security guards to have taken the plaintiff outside and to have held him there pending the arrival of police. It would also have been in the course of their employment if they had escorted him, using no more force than was reasonable necessary up to the police station … However, it was not in the course of their employment, in my view, to turn left into that lane with him and there to inflict upon him a brutal and vicious assault," he said.

"That brutal and vicious assault was not for the purpose of subduing him. It was so severe and unnecessary that it was motivated by the blood lust of the security officers involved. "I would therefore hold that the assault upon the plaintiff by the security guards was not done in the course of their employment but was an independent frolic of their own," he said. The men could not be found for the hearing and have never been charged. They denied the assault in police interviews.

Acting Justice Cooper said the bouncers had been "properly trained and supervised" and Mr Sprod's injuries were "caused by employees disobeying the instructions" for restraining people.

Mr Sprod, who suffers significant cognitive and speech impairment, told the Herald he would appeal against the finding. "I've got nothing more to lose. This has affected me for the rest of my life," he said.

Eva Scheerlinck, chief executive of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, said people such as Mr Sprod found themselves "stuck between a rock and a hard place" because they were unable to get compensation from employees or employers. "It does sort of highlight the unfortunate circumstances that the plaintiffs still find themselves in," she said.

Report here



(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)