Law Offices of John P. Connell, P.C.: In 2007, Mayor Menino signed “Imette’s Law,” making it mandatory for bouncers to submit to a background check and training prior to being hired at any Boston bar or club. The law was named after Imette St. Guillen, a 24-year-old Boston native who was murdered in Brooklyn and last seen working at a bar where a bouncer with a criminal history was also employed. Aside from providing for background checks and training on how to deal with unruly patrons, Imette’s Law grants the City authority to revoke the liquor license of any bar found to be employing a felon.
Following a recent incident at Grand Canal in Boston wherein a bouncer was videotaped kicking and assaulting a patron, enhanced scrutiny by the Boston licensing Board and the ABCC is almost insured. Bar and club owners should therefore be particularly prudent about insuring that they are in compliance with the background check requirements, as they are required to sign annual affidavits in connection with their renewal applications in November that aver to the fact that they are in compliance with Imette’s Law. In addition, the City of Boston Municipal Code states that bar or club owners who hire armed security guards as security personnel, or police officers sworn within the Commonwealth, must notify the Boston Licensing Board of the those employees’ names and, if applicable, the police departments where they work.
Bar and club owners should be cognizant of their employees’ criminal history and aware that any unruly, wrongful conduct by their employees’ could result in their own civil liability as well, as a bar may be held vicariously liable for a bouncer’s tortious conduct upon a patron. For example, in Davis v. DelRosso, 371 Mass. 768 (1977), a patron sued a café after a police officer, who was serving off-duty as a “bouncer,” assaulted him while kicking him out of the café. The court in this case held the café owner vicariously liable for the bouncer’s assault, reasoning that a jury could find the bouncer assaulted the patron while acting as an employee for the café and while on the café’s premises. In that case, the “bouncer” was “implicitly authorized by the [café] to use force in appropriate situations.” The court found the fact that the bouncer used excessive force, beyond what was necessary under the circumstances, did not make the bouncer’s “tortious acts beyond the scope of the employment.” The Appeals Court therefore affirmed a judgment against the café owner for damages suffered by the patron at the hands of a bouncer.
CONTRIBUTED BY COURTNEY MCGEE
© Law Offices of John P. Connell, P.C., 2013.