## Facts

- Mr. Everett was assaulted while a patron at Comojo (UK) Ltd's nightclub.
- He sustained injuries as a result of violent conduct by a third party on the premises.
- There was evidence of previous violent incidents at the venue.
- Mr. Everett alleged that the operators failed to provide adequate security and risk mitigation.
- The case addressed the liability of nightclub operators for injuries inflicted by the actions of other individuals within their establishment.

## Issues

1. Whether the nightclub owed Mr. Everett a duty of care to protect him from foreseeable harm resulting from third-party violence.
2. Whether prior incidents of violence made the risk of assault foreseeable to the nightclub operators.
3. Whether the nightclub took reasonable steps to mitigate the risk of such assaults.
4. Whether the operators’ failure to act on prior incidents constituted negligence.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that nightclub operators owe patrons a duty of care, particularly concerning foreseeable risks of violence.
- Evidence of prior violent incidents was sufficient to make the risk to Mr. Everett foreseeable.
- The court found that Comojo (UK) Ltd had not implemented adequate security measures in light of prior incidents.
- The operators’ failure to take reasonable steps to address known risks amounted to negligence.
- Liability was attributable to the nightclub for the assault suffered by Mr. Everett.

## Legal Principles

- The duty of care in negligence is established through the Caparo v Dickman three-stage test: foreseeability, proximity, and whether it is fair, just, and reasonable to impose a duty.
- Foreseeability of harm is critical in determining the existence and scope of duty for premises operators.
- Prior incidents are relevant in assessing foreseeability but are not alone determinative; their frequency and severity, and the response to them, are key.
- Operators of nightclubs and similar venues must implement reasonable security measures proportional to foreseeable risks.
- Failure to act in response to prior incidents of violence can result in liability for subsequent harm to patrons.

## Conclusion

The Everett v Comojo (UK) Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 13 judgment confirmed that nightclub operators can be held liable for third-party assaults if such risks are foreseeable and adequate preventive measures are not taken, reinforcing the significance of proactive risk management in high-risk environments.
