Beer vendor liable for drunk driver
 

In another insane court ruling:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...x.html?cnn=yes

Basically, a beer vendor in a standium with 80,000 people is liable for the actions AFTER THE GAME of any of the fans they serve beer to.

Honestly, american courts are fucked.

Guy chooses to buys beer. Guy chooses to buys more beer. Guy chooses to gets drunk. Guy chooses to drive his car after the game, and as a result gets in an accident.

he settled with the family of the girl for $200,000.

How the heck can the beer vendor be more liable than the guy WHO DROVE DRUNK?

Don't be surprised to see beer sales stopped after the first half in the future... if anyone has the balls to sell beer anymore.

Alex

Oh really???
I've never noticed. ;)
This should get overturned.
We'll see though.. 5M+ McDonalds suits for hot coffee have stood.

If 200 lawyers lived here, their wouldn't be a courtroom available for centuries. :(

The last time I was at Wembley (major British football stadium) they only served alcohol free beer. Bastards.

I still think that is the real reason the stadium was bulldozed down.

And also why all the delays in building the new one, no one really wants a sports stadium that does not serve real beer.

The worst part is that the guy who actually did the deed (drunk driving causing bodily injury) gets off for 200k... You would think that the court would see that the beer seller isn't any more responsible for what happened than the car maker who builds their cars capable of being driven by intoxicated people - you would think they would have a breathalizer in every car.

Would a drug dealer be held criminally liable for the actions of the same guy if he was high on coke instead? Whacked out on speed? Nope. The beer seller cannot be more liable while selling a legal product than someone would be selling an illegal one.

Alex

Believe it or not - when I owned a large bar in Virginia back in 1980s we had to have liability insurance for just this type of legal suit - and it not only had to cover me but my bartenders as well. At least in Virginia, the bartender is responsible for not serving a drink to anyone that "appears to be intoxicated" LOL

Something tells me this is the same case that has caused all the stadiums to actually enforce the 4 hour rule, where you can't get into the stadium to tailgate until 4 hours before kick off.

As everyone knows, we liked to go up to the games really early & get our "spot" on the parking lot - usually around 7:30-8:00. About 1/2 way thru the 2003 season they stopped letting people in before 9 AM & the reason was that some guy at Giants Stadium was allowed to start tailgating at 10 AM for a 4 PM game. He hit & injured/killed (we all heard versions of the story from other people) someone after the game & when asked when he started drinking that day, he told them.

So, ever since then, we can't get into the stadium parking lot until 9. This "rule" is of course not enforced on non-stadium parking lots (there's a lot of them around here) so as we sit in line waiting to get in so we can get our "spot" we get to watch people on the private lot next to the entrance set up their gear, start drinking & eating & having a gay old time.

6 beers at once is against the rules (I think all of them are 2 beers per person) but it's also a lot of beer for one guy to carry. Ever try carrying around 2 beers during a game where 50-80k people are? At halftime? You spill a little bit :) 6 beers? Impossible.

Even if he did swindle the beer guy into selling him 6 beers, it's his fault that he got drunk & drove home.

When I was younger, I was involved in a lawsuit where the family of a friend of mine sued a bar. My friend, was really drunk and kept drinking. He jumped on his Harley and headed home. Almost home, he hit a telephone poll and was killed. I actually identified the body but that is a different story. Anyway, 2 years later, I was called into court to testify as to how much he had to drink. Not long after that, the bar went out of business.

Jim, the sad part is there was no reason for the bar to go out of business - they didn't put him on the bike, and they didn't drive him into the phone pole. I am sorry when anyone gets hurt, but dammit, we have to be responsible for our own actions. The desire to always find someone to blame has always really bothered me.

Another true story. In new york, at a car rental company, a guy rents a lincoln town car for 24 hour rental "for a wedding". Instead, he uses it as a Gypsy taxi (basically cruising bus stops and giving people rides for about the same price as bus fare in many cases). While doing this, with 5 people in the car, he ran a red light and was hit by an 18 wheeler on the passanger side, which killed 3 of the occupants, and injured everyone else.

This guy has no money, no insurance, misrepresented himself to the rental companies and to the public, boke the law three ways from tuesday.... so you can guess what happens:

The car rental company gets taken to court. The truck driver had no money. The taxi driver had no money, but the rental company had deep pockets - and ended up paying a huge settlement because "if they hadn't rented the car, none of this would have happened".

It's stunning to see how far the courts are willing to go to find someone with money to pay for stupid people.

Alex

You can get sued for allowing party guests at your home to drive home intoxicated, so why shouldn't someone who gains financially by getting people drunk assume some sort of liability?

A side note, since the McDonald's coffee thing was mentioned. In one of the cases against their insanely hot fucking coffee the woman who spilled the coffee on her lap had to have plastic surgery on her thighs and labia due to the burns. Yet those silly teenage fucks refuse to turn down the settings on their coffee pots. The shit tastes burned anyway, why do people buy it?

We can all understand the importance of people being personally responsible, but those who are intoxicated no longer have proper judgement, that's why the fault inevitably falls on those who gained from the person becoming drunk. It's all about foreseeability. If they couldn't have foreseen the outcome, the wouldn't have been liable.

They should cut off the alcohol before becoming intoxicated, but will they? :)

Why don't the courts just sue the beer companies that make alcohol, since they are ultimately responsible for people getting drunk. |duff|

UW, the problem is that the courts seems to forget that there is an overt act by the individual at the start of the process that caused all of these other things to be important: Putting a fresh cup of coffee between your legs instead of in a cupholder ( and if you don't have a cupholder, don't get drive through!), drinking to excess, etc. Each and every one of these people took the root action that cause the thing to happen (don't want to get blind drunk? Don't go to bars... or don't drink so much).

In my drinking days, I would go out, drink moderately for most of the evening, and then about 60-90 minutes before closing time switch to WATER. Quite possibly at that moment I wasn't legally in condition to drink, but by the time I was behind the wheel, I was more than sober enough (and got checked once to find out).

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is an important part of real life. None of these apparent flaws in bars, beer vendors, car rental clerks, McD's employees and such would be an issue if the people involved had first taken PERSONAL RESPONSILBITY for their actions.

The beer didn't do anything beer isn't suppose to do. The driver did.

Alex

Yeah Alex
It was my friend's fault. We were in our early 20s and of course he thought nothing bad could ever happen to him. Especially less than a mile from his home. Of course being drunk and going over 100 mph on a motorcycle just don't mix. But, that happened about a month after the courts decided that a bar could be held liable for such incidents. It was the first time this ever happened around here.

Jim, it really sucks... I can think of the number of people from my high school who died pretty much horrible deaths because of too much "stuff" followed by bad decisions. I just think it sort of stupid that a drug dealer can't be held liable for an overdose but a legal drink establishment can be held liable for what happened after a client has long since left their building.

Just seems not right to me.

Alex

Same here in Indiana, Linkster. As a bartender...though a nearly retired one, thank God...I am liable. It is against the law for me to serve anyone that is intoxicated. And if I serve someone and they go out and kill themselves or someone else, then I am legally liable.

Selena,but what happens if you serve someone who isn't intoxicated, but he is "buying a round" for friend, some of which MAY be intoxicated? Are you required to look each potential patron in the eye and give them a once over? Does each drinker have to come to the bar to get their drinks individually? What happens if someone just drnak 4 shots from the shooter girl then comes to the bar, still appearing sober, and you server them 2 more? Did you do your job?

Seems to me the responsibility has ended up in the wrong place.

Alex

Well, for starters, where I work doesn't have servers. So I'm not clear on the law where servers become the middle man between patron and bartender.

I would assume they would only get added to the liablility chain, not that I would become absolved.

I simply know that under my state's law, I'm responsible. If you drink all night somewhere else, come in my bar, have one drink, then go kill someone, I am liable. No matter what twist you put on it, if I provide you with alcohol, and something comes up, I'm liable. Others may be as well, but I'm certainly in the chain of *legal* responsibility. Which has nothing to do with responsiblity that makes any damned sense.

As to the not serving intoxicated people, well, that is a law that bars simply don't abide by. They can't. With a .08 bac, it wouldn't take long to clear out your nights crowd.

And, another strange but true fact...say you have a drinking problem, and your spouse requests that I not serve you anymore. Ever. Because you are a drunk. If I'm under notice not to serve you and I do, I've broken the Indiana law.

In my opinion (just mine evidently) there should be personal responsibility for all of the actions that lead to the bad things - and lawyers should not be able to make a living suing people for these types of personal "choices". They made the choice to drink irresponsibly, therefore they make the choice to drive without regard to anyone else - the funny part is, they can run down a car in the oncoming traffic, continue to live, kill all the kids in an oncoming car, and the bar gets sued. This is all based on suits that the MADD made a long time ago when this whole issue came about.

I made my money for college working in bars, so Im a little biased, but when I was 16, I carried kegs of beer between coolers and a huge disco's bars to make a few bucks, saw many college kids that got totally wasted on 5 cent drafts - and of course back then the drinking age was 18 or lower if you had a draft card that you could alter to show that you were 18 - there was no DUI laws at the time so these kids would get totalled - and then go out and kill others out on the road. There were no lawsuits back then against drivers, bars or anyone for that matter - except lying presidents that broke into their opponents offices :) (that was a few years later)

I still remember turning 18, getting so wasted on my birthday that the bartenders had to carry me to my car on M Street in Georgetown Wash DC, put me in and they turned on the car - the next thing I remember was sitting in the middle lane of Wisconsin Ave uptown by the Natl Cathedral with a cop banging on the window asking me if I was ok - he recognized me cause we used to give the cops 6 packs for their shifts out the back door - so he followed me home to make sure I could make it :)

I'm mixed, Linkster. I'm a HUGE advocate of personal responsibility. Huge. If my children posted here, you could ask them how huge.

But I think, as a bartender, I have a duty...if to nothing else to my conscious...than to keep an eye on what I do. I am dealing in an intoxicating agent. And part of the result of what I do for a living (or did do) is that people lose the ability to make rational choices.

That doesn't give them absolution by any means. But if you serve a falling down drunk and he has an accident, then I can see how the lines can be drawn that include you in the circle of events that lead to the accident, yes.

I think the issue at the bottom of this topic is the intent of the law. What Selena is referring to in regards of the laws being enforced in Indiana was due to this story that happen in Lafayette, IN

About 5 years ago a guy walked into a bar at 2:00pm, and on security tape it clearly showed him order 6 shots of Tequila, that he lined up in a row and downed 1 after the other in less than a half minute’s time. He then sat there and ordered 2 more shots and a chaser (beer) and he got up and left at 2:23pm

Less then ½ mile away a husband/wife driving in their car swerved to miss him, but their daughter and her fiancé were in the car behind them so the father got to see his daughter die in his review mirror as the girl, her fiancée and the dumb ass all died.

Yes it was this dumb ass’s fault, I knew him, he was a total waste of shit, but the bartender has to be smart enough to know 8 shots and a chaser in 23 minutes time is too much for ANYONE to do and then drive. The Intent of this law/laws is to stop stupid shit like the actions of this bartender and if it does happen then to hold those accountable.

I do not think that in a case of a guy walking in, orders a beer and leaves who then kills someone, that the bartender will be held responsible, unless there is absolute proof that the bartender was irresponsible since that is not the intent of the law. The intent was to stop serving people until they are shit faced drunk and then letting them drive on their own.

It’s like the BS we webmaster’s have to worry about with 2257. Can they break down our doors and take our pc’s? Yes. Has it happen? No, but we still have to be expecting that it can happen and make sure we are compliant.

A bartender has to make sure they know that giving a guy 8 shots and a chaser may make him impaired and they might want to call a cab or the cops if he tries to leave or leaves.

Personally, and I know most of you will not agree with me, but I think all alcohol should be banned at sporting events. Yes, I am one of those few people who go to a game to see a game.

I don’t mind tailgaters, and if they want to tie one on in the parking lot, more power to them, I just don’t like having beer spilled on me and sitting next to 20,000 to 112,000 drunken people. Most games last 3 hours, in most cases this is the time needed to sober up, so get rid of the alcohol in stadiums and arenas and the DUI rate will plummet.

But it wont happen, since $ is to be made so let’s just blame the little girl for walking on the sidewalk as the drunk driver plows her over…..

just MHO.

Thanks, Torn. You said it better than I was able to. :)

Torn, how did the bartender know that they guy drove in? Could he have walked? Taken a bus? Come with a friend? Are they suppose to ask for car keys and such before they serve a drink? You know it only takes one drink an hour to make it to the 0.08 level.

Visibly intoxicated is well past not legally qualified to drive.

Theoretical question: same guy goes into a bar, drinks 4 drinks an hour for 3 hours, walks out to his truck, pulls out a chain saw and slices some poor bystander to death with it. Was the bar negigent this time?

Is the drunken dufus with the chainsaw EVER LIABLE?

It makes me sick to think that people selling a legal product in a legal manner have to play baby sitter, nanny, and mother to a bunch of people who just can't control themselves even slightly.

Alex

"A Bergen County jury in January found for a total $135 million in damages against Lanzaro and Aramark."

Notice it says JURY. Where do you find 12 people that agree on such a huge number? Can these people be literate and have reasonable paying jobs or are they out of work, Jerry Springer watching rednecks?

We all know the lawyers probably got 60% of the settlement and they should go to jail but 12 people had to agree on this. Imagine what kind of people could do this.

RawAlex

You just watched your only daughter and her fiancé die in a horrible crash that almost hit you and your wife.

The drunk driver is also dead.

You watch on the news the driver drink 8 shots and a chaser in 23 mins.

What do you do?

RE: "You just watched your only daughter .....What do you do?" - Personally I would be too devastated to do anything, but obviously these people instantly thought "Oh dear, are daughter is dead, but on the bright side we can make a few dollars out of this."