Hit by a Drunk Driver? Don't sue him, sue whoever sold him Booze!

[Amused]

A sad footnote in the ever increasing loss of personal responsibility in our country. The lesson here: Whoever has the deepest pockets is the responsible one.

Bar Owners Ordered to Pay $964,000

By ANGELA K. BROWN
The Associated Press

DENTON, Texas (AP) - A bar and its owners were ordered Friday to pay nearly $1 million to three students injured by a drunken driver after they left an alcohol-free school dance.

State District Judge Bruce McFarling entered the $964,000 judgment handed down last month by a jury against Broken Spoke Saloon and its owners, James M. Butler and his mother, Ann Lee Butler.

Four students were injured in the 1997 crash on their way home from a Valentine's Day dance sponsored by Students Against Drunk Driving. The families of three students filed the lawsuit, and the judgment will be split based on their injuries.

Amanda Lacey, 21, who has had 27 surgeries since the crash, said while she doesn't expect to actually receive the award, ``I was most happy when jurors did the right thing and held the bar responsible.''

Martin Van *** is serving a five-year prison sentence. His blood-alcohol level was three times the legal limit when tested several hours after the crash.

During the civil trial, Van *** testified that he drank 21 beers and two liquor shots Feb. 14, 1997, at the Broken Spoke Saloon.

But Charles Beachley, James Butler's attorney, said Van *** didn't drink at the Broken Spoke Saloon that night. The bar has since closed.

Beachley said Friday he would appeal the judgment.

On the Net:

Mothers Against Drunk Driving: www.madd.org

Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission: http://www.tabc.state.tx.us

 

[tweakmm]

Wow...that is quite ironic.
Although I do think that the bars should have some responsibility in making sure their patrons get home safely, making them pay a million dollars is crazy

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Wow...that is quite ironic.
Although I do think that the bars should have some responsibility in making sure their patrons get home safely...

Why?

 

[joohang]

What the fsck is going on with today's legal systems???

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: tweakmm
Wow...that is quite ironic.
Although I do think that the bars should have some responsibility in making sure their patrons get home safely, making them pay a million dollars is crazy

Yeah. So the bar owners should also serve as free babysitters for their customers. Sure. Ever tried to stop a drunk bastard from drinking further?

 

[djheater]

Hey now... Obviously we don't know the whole story here, but if he did sit in the bar and drink "21 beers and two liquor shots" without the bartender cutting him off i think the bar is partially responsible for releasing a dangerously drunk person.... I used to hang out in a bar (where a friend worked) guys were routinely cut off way before that...

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: djheater
Hey now... Obviously we don't know the whole story here, but if he did sit in the bar and drink "21 beers and two liquor shots" without the bartender cutting him off i think the bar is partially responsible for releasing a dangerously drunk person.... I used to hang out in a bar (where a friend worked) guys were routinely cut off way before that...

So the bar owner has to pay the victims of the accident nearly one million dollars?

No. The idiot, who knew that he was going to drive after, should have stopped drinking himself. It was his choice to drink that much. It was his choice to refuse to call a cab. It was his choice that he drove to the bar and drove back from the bar. It was his retarded decision that caused the accient. What does the bar owner have to do with this?

WTF is wrong with our culture these days?

 

[ndee]

Sue the bar owner's mother!

 

[joohang]

Originally posted by: ndee
Sue the bar owner's mother!

hahaha. No sh*t, huh? Sue the b!tch for raising such a cruel son.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: djheater
Hey now... Obviously we don't know the whole story here, but if he did sit in the bar and drink "21 beers and two liquor shots" without the bartender cutting him off i think the bar is partially responsible for releasing a dangerously drunk person.... I used to hang out in a bar (where a friend worked) guys were routinely cut off way before that...

And how is the bartender supposed to know this guy is gonna drive? Or if he even dealt with the same bartender the whole night?

 

[PsychoAndy]

this information does not suprise me. it actually acts as a deterrent for bars to keep serving the already intoxicated.

my family has a bar, and in FL its a known fact in the reg books that you will be held accountable if you keep serving to someone and they injure someone in the process of being inebriated.

lets run this scenario. some guy goes bar hopping. he goes to reds bar. he is served 4 beers. goes to ameesh's bar, he is served 4 more beers. he is now visibly intoxicated. he goes to russ's bar and he is served 1 beer. he crashes and injures someone. according to state law, russ' bar is responsible. its not so much deep pockets as it is proving the point that if theyre already drunk, quit serving them. if you dont, you have the liability of getting sued.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Actually this type of lawsuit got popular when we first really starting cracking down on drinking/driving 20 or so years ago. I can remember about the time I graduated high school bartenders/owners were getting sued for selling peole the booze that got them the DUI.

 

[Cyberian]

And how is the bartender supposed to know this guy is gonna drive? Or if he even dealt with the same bartender the whole night?

I am almost certain that in NY State it is against the law to serve alcohol to someone who is impaired, whether that person is driving or not.

Is the law right? That seems to be open for discussion.

 

[HappyPuppy]

I think they should have sued the brewery and distiller for producing potentially dangerous products that are capable of misuse. Then they should sue the farmers who grew the hops, barley and other ingredients that went into the refined products. Next they must sue the water companies that sold and delivered the water to the farmers because they knew that the farmers could be growing crops that might be used in the manufacture of a product that could be misused and cause death or injury to innocent bystanders. Last, but not least, God and/or Nature must be brought to account for allowing things to occur naturally which might be misused by ignorant human beings.

One last thing, the drunken arsehole's mother should be sued for giving birth to him. This is a case that proves that abortion isn't always a bad thing.

 

[Lucky]

But how are you to tell when someone is clearly intoxicated? Sure, there are obvious situations, but its not always so cut-and-dry. We've got 26 bars here in my town in a three-block stretch. Its not uncommon for people to do "the shuffle", or visit every one of the 26 bars and take one drink at each one. Now, since this is a small town most people can walk back to their houses, but the bars know when people are doing this because the "shufflers" wear t-shirts and get people to sign them. Now, according to this judgement it would seem like bar-owners should refuse service to these people out of possible legal liability. Yet they shouldnt! If I "shuffle" and drive home and crash, killing someone, its MY responsibility and MY fault.

Whats next, suing tobacco and gun manufacturers? Oh wait, thats already happened! :Q

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: PsychoAndyits not so much deep pockets as it is proving the point that if theyre already drunk, quit serving them. if you dont, you have the liability of getting sued.

The amount of the ruling is questionable... I have no idea why they would rule for so much. I guess having spent enough time in the bar I've seen how seriously some bartender's take thier job. No one I know would serve the same guy 21 beers in one serving... the guy is obviously a danger to himself and other's why would any human being want that on thier conscience?

edit~~ actually I can think of a few circumstances where someone would serve them.... id they are with a group it's generally expected that the group will look out for each other.. and they're served as much as they want... within limits....

Whatever you may believe thier rights as citizen's to be... If I were the bartender and I was watching a guy drink that much I would feel it's my duty as a human being to insure that he's not driving afterwards... I hope for my kid's sake that you and everybody else would too...

 

[Ns1]

No. The idiot, who knew that he was going to drive after, should have stopped drinking himself. It was his choice to drink that much. It was his choice to refuse to call a cab. It was his choice that he drove to the bar and drove back from the bar. It was his retarded decision that caused the accient. What does the bar owner have to do with this?

WTF is wrong with our culture these days?

yes! thank you!


and how can you tell when somebody's "drunk" and when they're not? somebody could do like 12 beers and not be visibly "drunk"

 

[IGBT]

You can thank the "buzzard" legal community for that and a lot more to come.

 

[Bignate603]

I think that yes, the bartender should not have served this guy 21 beers but it was also his choice. If he bought a case, took it home, chugged it all and then got in an accident would the supermarket he bought the beer at be liable? It was his choice... I think maybe they should sue both parties and not just the bar at least. It took both parties to get him smashed, shouldn't they both pay?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

In defense of the legal profession, the media does not tell both sides of the story. What happened in that courtroom obviously convinced 12 jurors (or the judge if it was a bench trial) that the bar (and its owners) should be liable for the injuries for serving alcohol to people that were already incapacitated. The judge, if the jury screwed up, has the power to nullify the verdict - and obviously chose not to do so.

The issue involving the bar owner and his mother being personally liable is too difficult to explain here. For those who would like to read about the legal mechanism that allows this, do a google search for "piercing the corporate veil"

Bar owners have a responsibility TO SOCIETY to cut off patrons that may not realize that they need to be cut off. This is called "dram shop liability." After drunk patrons leave bars, they have a tendency to get in their cars to drive home, endangering anyone who happens to be on the road at the time. Drunk people have impaired judgment - they often believe that they are not drunk and able to drive home. Some believe that they drive better drunk... this is obviously bullsh!t.

In short, reponsibility is SHARED between the 1) drunk driver and 2) the bar that profited from intoxicating him.

Both should be liable. Given the deep pockets principle, it is rather obvious that the bar will pay because they have dram shop insurance. The 18 year old idiot is likely not worth his weight in beer piss... so he will get off relatively light as far as civil liability.

Should the families of the injured or the injured themselves be barred from recovering a civil judgement because the teenaged tortfeasor is insolvent? Especially since it is possible that the bar served him 21 beverages, at a profit, to an UNDERAGED DRINKER?

The little bastard should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, IMHO - the drunk should pay criminally. I feel the bar should pay too - civilly and criminally. Teh bar tried to profit off of a customer it had no right to serve. Due diligence dictates that the bar

1) should never have served an underaged customer; and
2) should not have served 21 beverages to any one customer - no matter what age.

Jesus, amusedone, I am a conservative and I even believe in some degree of tort reform - but to allow the bar to get away with this one seems to be the ultimate in irresponsibility.

 

[911paramedic]

"Broken Spoke Saloon" shall now be known as "Broke Spoke Saloon"

 

[Amused]

Jesus, amusedone, I am a conservative and I even believe in some degree of tort reform - but to allow the bar to get away with this one seems to be the ultimate in irresponsibility.

I'm not conservative.

I believe in personal responsibility. The buck stops with the idiot who had too much to drink, and got in his car.

As for convincing twelve jurors, someone convinced twelve jurors that OJ was innocent too. This does not validate the outcome on an ethical or moral level.

 

[desy]

The problem with the US legal system is that it isn't set up for "loser pays" Its the only industirlaized country in the world that does this which is why
you end up with all these BS lawsuits and sooner or later some of them win.
I don't think a bar is supposed to police its patrons and if it is, where are the tools to do so?
Do they now have to setup breathalyzers staions as people come in and leave? Ridiculous :|
I lost my license bout a decade ago to DUI and the rule taught in the Driving without impairment classes you take , before you even have one drink, you think about how you are going to get home, period. Personla responsibility.

 

[djheater]

Originally posted by: desy

I don't think a bar is supposed to police its patrons and if it is, where are the tools to do so?
Do they now have to setup breathalyzers staions as people come in and leave? Ridiculous :|

Just because a thing is not implicitly illegal does not make it right, moral, or necessarily a good thing to do.

Think about it.

Whether or not it is a bar's legal responsibility to make sure the patron is not dangerous when they leave, it is still everyone's and anyone's moral responsibility to step in and stop someone who is a danger to others.

 

[tweakmm]

Responding to all of those questing why the bar should be responsible:
I do think that is the drinkers responsiblility to get home safely, but it is a sad fact that we live in a society where some people will go to a bar and drink without thinking about transportation home. I don't think that it's fair to the bar owners but I would rather see someone(possibly government could reimburse the owners) shoulder the responsibility than see someone I love or myself getting killed or injured in a drunk driving accident.