Obligations of a Licensee for Business Law- MyAssignmenthelp.com

Question: Discuss about theRights and Obligations of a Licenseefor Business Law. Answer: As a licensee one has legal obligations towards persons that visit his premises as patrons, on top of that he has legal obligations towards his staff and the surrounding environment. Some of those obligations include; Under theWork Health and Safety Act 2011, he is obligated to ensure a safe environment for patrons, staff and the areas surrounding the licensed premises. Secondly, every licensee has a responsibility to provide drinking water for patrons within his premises. This is made mandatory by the Liquor Regulation 2002, where cold drinking water should be made available at a reasonable cost to patrons (Brenda and Peter, 2015). Another obligation for the licensee will be to ensure that tables and surroundings within the premises are cleared of empty glasses and bottles. The staff should clean up what is not in use. This helps prevent situations where the lens could be utilized as a weapon in case a brawl arose. The licensee has a duty to ensure the safety and enjoyment of the patrons present in his premises; he then has a responsibility to disallow persons who are drunk or quarrelsome from entering or remaining on his licensed premises (Atherton, 2011). The licensee also has rights exercisable to him as the license holder, they include; Refusing entry into the premises by any person as long as that refusal is not discriminatory based on gender, race or other unlawful biases Licensee has the right to ask any patron within his licensed premises to leave or vacate the premises The licensee has a right to refuse to serve or sell to a patron if the said patron is already intoxicated The licensee has the power to issue a barring order to a patron that is enforceable by the police. As the licensee, I have a duty to ensure that the patrons who visit my premises are safe and able to enjoy without interference. I also have a duty to my staff to make sure they are working in a conducive environment free from harassment. If Larry has become a constant nuisance at the restaurant, then I reserve the right to disallow him from entering the restaurant. I also bear a duty towards Larry; Neither my staff nor I should serve him any more liquor after he exhibits signs of intoxication. This is illegal under section 105 of the Liquor Act 2010. Liability on the part of the licensee will arise only if certain aspects of law can be proved by Larry. The claims emanating from the circumstances given will be under tort law, specifically the tort of negligence. Negligence arises when one party is injured or suffers loss due to the acts or omission of another. If the act or omission is proved, then the aggrieved party becomes compensated by the defendant. To prove negligence one has to establish the following; That a duty of care was owed to him by the defendant. A duty of care is owed to anyone who can be foreseeably injured by your actions or omissions. This element is usually not difficult to prove, and in our case particularly the licensee owed Larry a duty of care since by not taking care of the premises facilities he put him in danger of getting hurt. That the defendant was in breach of that duty; this element is the one used to ascertain fault and is the one that becomes the main area of contention with the plaintiff claiming if the defendant been more cautious then the accident would not have occurred. Larry was owed a duty of care by the licensee; the licensee did not take appropriate measure to ensure that the toilet was properly locked with a functional lock to keep unsuspecting users out of it. That the plaintiffs injury or loss was as a result of the defendant not carrying out that duty of care; from our case, the injuries sustained by Larry were as a direct consequence of the toilet wall collapsing on him. Other than negligence, the issue of occupiers liability will arise. Occupiers liability is the duty of care owed by the occupier of premises towards visitors who visit the premises and who suffer injury or loss during their stay at the premises. Section 14A of the Wrongs Act 1958 defines occupiers liability and gives the scope in which it will apply. The act further states that an occupier of any premise owes a duty to any person on his premise and in our case it becomes evident that the licensee owed Larry that duty of care. However, common law in Australia has recently taken an approach where they dispense a limited duty of care when it comes to bars and pubs. Patrons have been given greater responsibility when it comes to their safety especially if they were drinking voluntarily (Curtwoods, 2016). In Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby Club Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 29 (Cole) the court looked at common law position relating to the liability placed on pubs and clubs for injuries to patrons which take place courtesy of their intoxication. The High Court considered an extension of occupiers' liability to include a broader duty to patrons when serving alcohol. In this case, the court held that the licensee had taken all necessary steps within its power to ensure that the plaintiff had left the premises safely. Section 50(2) of the civil liability act prevents a court of law from awarding damages to a plaintiff who was intoxicated at the time of the incident. The exception is that the court gets convinced that the injury or loss would have still occurred even if the plaintiff had not been intoxicated. In such a case then the courts presume contributory negligence where both the plaintiff and defendant were partly liable for the injury or loss (Hely, 2008). In this case, the licensee had a lock on the old toilet, but the lock was rusty and unusable meaning patrons might have been able to access it. This shows that the licensee failed in taking due care especially in an environment where people were likely to be intoxicated. He and his staff noticed that Larry was highly intoxicated but neglected the fact that the toilet at the back might have posed a danger to him. This, therefore, makes him liable and not just that, he also becomes vicariously liable for his employees. On the other hand, Larry has a responsibility towards him and cannot wholly blame his misfortune on the licensee. Therefore he will also be partly liable for the injuries he suffered. References Brenda, M., and Peter, H., (2015) "Two Problems Of Occupiers Liability." Melbourne University Law Review, 508-538. Atherton, C., and Atherton, A., (2011) Tourism, Travel and Hospitality Law, 2ndedn, Thomson Reuters (Professional) Australia Ltd Ch 14 pp 448- 469. Curwoods Lawyers. (2016) "Pubs, Clubs and Patrons- Overview." November 2016: 2-7. Hely, Brook. (2008) "Open all hours: The reach of Vicarious Liability in 'Off-Duty' Sexual Harassment Complaints." Federal Law Review, 174-206. The Law Reform Commission. (1987). Occupiers Liability. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service, 31 Novemebr. Parliament of Victoria, Research Brief No 6, September 2009, Liquor Control Reform Amendment (Licensing) Bill. Liquor Act, 2010. Wrongs Act, 1958.