Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

Patrick2010

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/man-injured-at-traveller-wedding-reception-loses-damages-claim-1.2218528

A man whose neck was slashed when a fight erupted at a Traveller wedding reception has lost his action for damages against the hotel where the function took place.
Thomas Connors (22), The Paddocks, Kilcock, Co Kildare, was aged 14 when he attended a cousin’s wedding at the Lumville House Hotel in the Curragh where he was attacked during a “stampede” of people trying to get out of the function room where a “free for all” broke out, the High Court was told.
He sued hotel proprietor Michael Lambe over the incident on November 27th, 2006, which he said left him with a scar on the back of his neck and led to him having nightmares for two years.
It was claimed there was a failure to prevent access to the function by unruly people or to have proper security in place. It was also claimed, because his cousin had paid a €1,000 breakage deposit, the hotel should have had security in place.
The Lambe family, who have run the hotel since 1971, denied the claims. They pleaded, while there had been trouble at one previous Traveller wedding, they had an unwritten policy not to put in security because they believed it was not required as it was a family function.....


At about 10pm, a big row broke out and everybody tried to squeeze out one door at the same time, he said. He was grabbed from behind by an unknown person while someone else slashed him with either a knife or a bottle, he said. He had to take refuge in the toilets along with others.
He also said he had been served two or three “Fat Frog” alcoholic cocktail drinks that night despite being only 14. The hotel denied that claim.
In her evidence, Lisa Lambe said she and staff had to barricade themselves into the lounge until the gardaí arrived.
In his decision, Mr Justice Kearns said it was suggested the hotel should have “geared up” for trouble because a security consultant, who gave evidence for the Connors side, had described “fracas” as being “part and parcel of Traveller weddings”.
The Lambes took the most honourable course and made no assumptions about this family who, it was assumed, were the best of people coming to enjoy the wedding, he said.
It was not his experience bouncers were required at weddings, whatever about them being required for dances going on into the small hours, the judge said.


Hotels can't win. Don't take a booking and get sued for discrimination. Take the booking, treat them like a normal wedding party and get sued for not covering the place with bouncers.

whatismyname

Here we go...

Rosie Gardens

Can't see this thread ending well...

Liberals on one side, Conservative prejudice on the other.

Could be worth getting some snacks in!

whatismyname

I do fair miss those Fat Frogs though.

You have to feel sorry for the kid, a 14 year old should not be exposed to such dangers and end up stabbed at a function.

But on the other hand, suing the hotel was clearly a stretch, but of course in assault cases it's often pointless to go after the actual perp as they won't have any funds to pay any award.

YFlyer

Fracas part of their culture?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

And they wonder why hotels won't take traveller weddings.

The_Valeyard

Rosie Gardens wrote: »

Can't see this thread ending well...

Liberals on one side, Conservative prejudice on the other.

Could be worth getting some snacks in!

yes.....only one side has prejudices...

Cee-Jay-Cee

He'd have a better chance if he took an action for damages against his own family (who caused the row and were probably involved)

MathDebater

You hire a hape of security and they would probably complain and threaten to sue you for discrimination. You don't hire security and they bait the ****e out of one another and sue you.

You cannot win.

super_furry

Rosie Gardens wrote: »

Liberals on one side, Conservative prejudice on the other.

Here I am stuck in the middle with you, boss!

In fairness though, unless you're trying to keep out the paparazzi because you're David Beckham, no civilized person should need security guards at their wedding.

Rosie Gardens

The_Valeyard wrote: »

yes.....only one side has prejudices...

I was being slightly tongue in cheek... I probably should have said crusty liberals to balance it

Greenmachine

If they were expecting expecting trouble at the wedding, they should have hired their own security. I know the lad was only 14, and I sympathies with his injuries and suffering. The fact that it was a private function should not have necessitated security. If it happened in a bar open to the public, I think the operator would have been liable.

seamus

Hah, the cognitive dissonance.

"Fracas are part and parcel of Traveller weddings".

"You can't refuse our business just because we're travellers"

I imagine Pavee Point are keeping well clear of this mess.

ScouseMouse

MathDebater wrote: »

You hire a hape of security and they would probably complain and threaten to sue you for discrimination. You don't hire security and they bait the ****e out of one another and sue you.

You cannot win.

Have to agree with you there. Thats why some pubs choose to close when events like this happen as to refuse entry would open them up to allegations of discrimination.

As the report says,

"Mr Justice Kearns said it was suggested the hotel should have “geared up” for trouble because a security consultant, who gave evidence for the Connors side, had described “fracas” as being “part and parcel of Traveller weddings”.

If the judge says it, surely I, or anyone else, cannot be accused of bias.

ScouseMouse

seamus wrote: »

Hah, the cognitive dissonance.

"Fracas are part and parcel of Traveller weddings".

"You can't refuse our business just because we're travellers"

I imagine Pavee Point are keeping well clear of this mess.

Perhaps Pavee point could stand up and explain how this is not true and how its discrimination.

keithclancy

Fire sues Fireman for having inadequate Fire suppression measures.

whiskeyman

I wonder if there's a market for novelty inflatable slashhooks, pitchforks etc... at these weddings...

abff

When I see cases like this, I always wonder why lawyers agree to take them on. This smacks of ambulance chasing at its worst.

If it was possible to put a system in place whereby any lawyer who agreed to take on a frivolous, vexatious case which was doomed to fail would become liable for paying the other side's costs, the number of such cases would fall dramatically.

fryup

whiskeyman wrote: »

I wonder if there's a market for novelty inflatable slashhooks, pitchforks etc... at these weddings...

Bouncy Hi-ace ?

Sleepy

abff wrote: »

When I see cases like this, I always wonder why lawyers agree to take them on. This smacks of ambulance chasing at its worst.

If it was possible to put a system in place whereby any lawyer who agreed to take on a frivolous, vexatious case which was doomed to fail would become liable for paying the other side's costs, the number of such cases would fall dramatically.

Expecting morals from lawyers? That's more naieve than the hotel owner!

Mint Aero

It's their beautiful traditional full Irish celtic blood vikings high kings tin beating culture :rolleyes:

keeponhurling

abff wrote: »

When I see cases like this, I always wonder why lawyers agree to take them on. This smacks of ambulance chasing at its worst.

If it was possible to put a system in place whereby any lawyer who agreed to take on a frivolous, vexatious case which was doomed to fail would become liable for paying the other side's costs, the number of such cases would fall dramatically.

Eh, money ?

you can't really tell if it is frivolous until you've actually looked into the details

Sheldons Brain

You rent an hotel for a private function, the provision of bouncers is a question for the private function, I would have thought.

foggy_lad

ScouseMouse wrote: »

Have to agree with you there. Thats why some pubs choose to close when events like this happen as to refuse entry would open them up to allegations of discrimination.

As the report says,

"Mr Justice Kearns said it was suggested the hotel should have “geared up” for trouble because a security consultant, who gave evidence for the Connors side, had described “fracas” as being “part and parcel of Traveller weddings”.

If the judge says it, surely I, or anyone else, cannot be accused of bias.

Doesn't this leave the door wide open now for all traveller weddings christening parties funerals and other occasions to be refused by any hotel, pub, club or other hostelry due to the likelihood that there will be a breach of the peace because it is "part and parcel of travellerweddings"?

ChippingSodbury

fryup wrote: »

Bouncy Hi-ace ?

When was the first mention of a traveller in the bible?

Hosanna in the Hiace

kylith

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doesn't this leave the door wide open now for all traveller weddings christening parties funerals and other occasions to be refused by any hotel, pub, club or other hostelry due to the likelihood that there will be a breach of the peace because it is "part and parcel of travellerweddings"?

I don't know, but it probably opens the door for any establishment hosting traveller weddings to have dozens of armoured and armed security staff stationed around the function room.

seamus

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doesn't this leave the door wide open now for all traveller weddings christening parties funerals and other occasions to be refused by any hotel, pub, club or other hostelry due to the likelihood that there will be a breach of the peace because it is "part and parcel of travellerweddings"?

No, I don't think so. The comments of a single traveller in a court case wouldn't be that wide-reaching.

However, it might mean there is provision for hotels to include expensive security services as part of a wedding package, or ask for a five-figure security deposit for traveller weddings.

I can see how discrimination of this kind could be defensible by claiming that a traveller wedding is "high-risk" and therefore they're justified in asking for a large refundable deposit.

VinLieger

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doesn't this leave the door wide open now for all traveller weddings christening parties funerals and other occasions to be refused by any hotel, pub, club or other hostelry due to the likelihood that there will be a breach of the peace because it is "part and parcel of travellerweddings"?

Every hotel in the country should have their lawyers bookmarking this case for future use when refusing travelers bookings

galljga1

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doesn't this leave the door wide open now for all traveller weddings christening parties funerals and other occasions to be refused by any hotel, pub, club or other hostelry due to the likelihood that there will be a breach of the peace because it is "part and parcel of travellerweddings"?

I would say no. If the case had been successfull, it probably would. The hotel industry should have allowed this hotel to settle the case. Then they would have a right enshrined in law to refuse to cater for our lovely travelling brethren.

dub_skav

I don't believe this would set any precedent. The quote seems to state that the judge mentions (in his summing up or elsewhere) that a security consultant who was called by the claimant stated “fracas” as being “part and parcel of Traveller weddings”.

It's an extremely cumbersome way of stating it, which leads to confusion - not surprising from our newspapers these days - but essentially the guys bringing the case claimed this, the judge did not agree with it.

robertpatterson

seamus wrote: »

No, I don't think so. The comments of a single traveller in a court case wouldn't be that wide-reaching.

However, it might mean there is provision for hotels to include expensive security services as part of a wedding package, or ask for a five-figure security deposit for traveller weddings.

I can see how discrimination of this kind could be defensible by claiming that a traveller wedding is "high-risk" and therefore they're justified in asking for a large refundable deposit.

It was an expert on the connors side that said “fracas” as being “part and parcel of Traveller weddings”. not an individual traveller
What constitutes an expert in that regard ive no idea:eek:

I wonder what would happen if someone outside of court was quoted as saying this stuff was part and parcel of traveller weddings.

keithclancy

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder what would happen if someone outside of court was quoted as saying this stuff was part and parcel of traveller weddings.

Well really the person bringing the case is inferring this is the case by saying sufficient security should have been present due to the type of event.

goose2005

whiskeyman wrote: »

I wonder if there's a market for novelty inflatable slashhooks, pitchforks etc... at these weddings...

Maybe in 100 years time it'll be part of wedding custom to have mock-traveller brawls at every wedding, just like in Romania where the grooms family "kidnap" the bride http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2197785/There-goes-bride-The-bizarre-Romanian-custom-staging-mock-kidnappings-weddings.html

El_Duderino 09

If these fracas are part and parcel of a traveller wedding, is it OK to charge travellers more to host the wedding? Same question with damage deposit.

abff

Sleepy wrote: »

Expecting morals from lawyers? That's more naieve than the hotel owner!

Not at all. I was just expressing a wish that there was a system in place to punish them for taking on such cases.

abff

keeponhurling wrote: »

Eh, money ?

you can't really tell if it is frivolous until you've actually looked into the details

Fair enough. But looking into the details is one thing; actually going to court is another. And appealing it to a higher court is yet another.

While I know there's no way that the law is going to be changed to make lawyers liable for the other side's costs when they take on vexatious, frivolous cases, at the very least they could bring in a requirement that nothing would be paid to the losing side's lawyer in such cases until all the other side's costs have been discharged in full.

I know - it's not gonna happen. But I can dream, can't I?

Grayson

foggy_lad wrote: »

Doesn't this leave the door wide open now for all traveller weddings christening parties funerals and other occasions to be refused by any hotel, pub, club or other hostelry due to the likelihood that there will be a breach of the peace because it is "part and parcel of travellerweddings"?

It'd be the opposite. If the judge had thought that there was a serious risk he might have found in favor of the traveler.

anncoates

It's terrible to see undercover racists yet again causing trouble at a traveler social event in order to discredit the community.

abff

abff wrote: »

If it was possible to put a system in place whereby any lawyer who agreed to take on a frivolous, vexatious case which was doomed to fail would become liable for paying the other side's costs, the number of such cases would fall dramatically.

This case was not dismissed for being frivolous or vexatious.

To make lawyers responsible for losing cases is ridiculous, like making doctors liable for patients who don't succeed in getting better. Of course they may be, if there is negligence, but not fir simply taking on a matter.

silverfeather

Why not just say man sues? What has his ethnic background got to do with it? 'Man Sues'.

SeanW

silverfeather wrote: »

Why not just say man sues? What has his ethnic background got to do with it? 'Man Sues'.

Sure. Conceal the key facts of the case, hide the cause and the explanation for the whole incident, just to serve some liberal leftist agenda.

silverfeather

SeanW wrote: »

Sure. Conceal the key facts of the case, hide the cause and the explanation for the whole incident, just to serve some liberal leftist agenda.

I am not taking that post seriously. No matter how much you protest. It's hilarious.

RayM

SeanW wrote: »

Sure. Conceal the key facts of the case, hide the cause and the explanation for the whole incident, just to serve some liberal leftist agenda.

A person's ethnic background is not a key fact.

Except that the "ethnicity" of the guests, including the plaintiff, is a key part of the case since that is why there apparently should have been more security.

silverfeather

Deleted User wrote: »

Except that the "ethnicity" of the guests, including the plaintiff, is a key part of the case since that is why there apparently should have been more security.

The f*ckin Irish I tells ya..

His ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The hotel was vindicated and found not liable.

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

CatFromHue

Did the hotel have to pay costs?

What's amazing is that not only did this get to a court but was appealed to the high court!

The_Minister

silverfeather wrote: »

The f*ckin Irish I tells ya..

His ethnicity has nothing to do with it. The hotel was vindicated and found not liable.

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

A core part of his case was that traveller weddings are more violent than settled weddings, therefore the hotel should have had enhanced security.

The fact that he is a traveller is key to the whole matter.

El_Duderino 09

RayM wrote: »

A person's ethnic background is not a key fact.

The traveller made his ethnicity part of the case. He got a security expert to testify that 'this type of fracas is part and parcel of a traveller wedding'.

SeanW

RayM wrote: »

A person's ethnic background is not a key fact.

Wedding receptions don't usually descend into mass riots. There would have to be a reason. Sure enough, the reports indicate the reason. Indeed, the reason why the reception descended into chaos was explained by the plaintiff as the key to his case.

silverfeather wrote: »

Man sued and lost .../ end of story.

You should write for the Guardian.