hookes family to sue...., page-45

The criminal court found that the bouncer was not guilty of manslaughter presumably because there was at least reasonable doubt to convict. In a civil law suit several factors come into play.

1. The level of proof is to the "balance of probablities" not to "beyond reasonable doubt". So the chances of winning the case against the bouncer are significantly greater.

2. It bouncer may indeed have been negligent in causing Hookes' death while not being criminally culpable.

In Australia the issue of negligence requires three tests:

a) Damage must have occurred. Obviously in this case, the answer is yes. His family have lost a husband, father, brother or son.

b) The action must be negligent. I think in this case, the Hookes' family need to demonstrate that a "reasonable person" would believe that there was no valid reason for the bouncer to be persuing Hookes after he left the restaurant.

bc It must be determined that a "reasonable person" could have foreseen the demage that the action would cause. The bouncer might argue that he could not have foreseen Hookes' head hitting the ground the way it did. Hookes family would no doubt argue that there would be a number of foreseeable nasty consequences of chasing after someone and then responding to being "attacked" by that person by king hitting them in the head. I think that the bouncer is in trouble with this point. He is apparently a trained boxer and would surely know how to give a body punch that would disable an attacker instead of punching him in the head.

As well as providing a financial compensation to those that suffer from the results of neglience, another reason for civil law suits include providing an incentive for people to consider the consequences of their actions and providing financial disincentives for any such lack of consideration.