Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd

The case of *Cole v South Tweed Heads Rugby League Football Club Ltd* involved an appeal to the High Court of Australia concerning a claim in negligence. The appellant, Ms Cole, suffered serious injuries when she was struck by a motor vehicle shortly after leaving the respondent club's premises in a state of severe intoxication. The central dispute revolved around whether the club owed a duty of care to Ms Cole to prevent her from becoming excessively intoxicated and to ensure her safety after she left the premises.

The High Court was required to determine whether the respondent club owed a duty of care to the appellant to take reasonable steps to monitor and moderate the amount of alcohol served to her, and to ensure her safe departure from the premises. A key legal issue was whether such a duty of care could exist to protect individuals from harm caused by their own voluntary intoxication, particularly when the intoxication was self-induced to a significant degree. The court also considered the relevance of statutory provisions governing registered clubs and the conduct of intoxicated persons on their premises, even in the absence of an allegation of breach of those statutory duties.

The High Court, in a majority decision, found that the respondent club did owe a duty of care to the appellant. The reasoning emphasised that while voluntary intoxication is a factor, it does not absolve suppliers of alcohol, who have a commercial interest in its sale, from all legal responsibility. The court acknowledged the impairing effects of alcohol on judgment, co-ordination, and reaction times, noting that these effects can diminish an individual's capacity for self-care. The majority concluded that the club, by having economic and physical control over the supply of alcohol on its premises, had a common law duty to take reasonable steps to moderate the supply to patrons who became excessively intoxicated and to ameliorate the consequences of such supply when it was clear the patron was unable to ensure their own safety. The primary judge's findings that the club had breached this duty and that the breach was a cause of the appellant's injuries were upheld.

The appeal was allowed, and the judgment in favour of the appellant against the respondent club was restored, with costs awarded to the appellant.