-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Hit by a Drunk Driver? Don't sue him, sue whoever sold him Booze!
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Did you not read what I said? I think that it is the drinkers responsibility but some people don't care. So instead of doing something about the people who don't care, we should just let them go out and get in an accident?
I didnt say that only other people should shoulder the responsibility, possibly bars could impliement something where you couldnt have more than 2 or 3 drinks without having a safe way home.
Man, there is just no personal responsibility at all any more in the US. WTF is wrong with people? If you do something of your own free will, it's your own stupid fault. It doesn't matter if someone "should" have done something. It's still your fault. No one made this idiot get drunk, and it's no ones responsibility but his to not drink and drive. Should bars try to prevent drunk driving? Sure, it's a nice thing to do. But in the end it's the drunks fault and no one elses.
DevilsAdvocate
Banned
Amusedone -
If you truly believe in personal responsibility, why do you not think that the bar owner should be liable? Does he not have a responsibility? If you don't believe so, you are certainly in the minority - legally speaking. Dram shop liability is a very old concept, born in England, that came across the pond with the rest of our law. (at least that is my understanding - if there are any legal historians out there... feel free to educate me 🙂)
You are absolutely wrong about there being one person responsible. What about the bar? What about a bar that serves 21 beers and 2 shots to a single underaged patron? That is beyond irresponsible. Granted, the teen was willing to drink, and willing to pay a premium for the privilege... but the bar is responsible.
This is not a new case - this is a firmly established area of the law. Bars have been sued for these actions since... well I don't know when for this type of nonfeasance.
This is not a McDonald's cup of coffee case... This is not a tobacco case...
This is a distinctly different issue.
Explain to me, as if I were a child, how you think that the bar is not liable.
If you truly believe in personal responsibility, why do you not think that the bar owner should be liable? Does he not have a responsibility? If you don't believe so, you are certainly in the minority - legally speaking. Dram shop liability is a very old concept, born in England, that came across the pond with the rest of our law. (at least that is my understanding - if there are any legal historians out there... feel free to educate me 🙂)
You are absolutely wrong about there being one person responsible. What about the bar? What about a bar that serves 21 beers and 2 shots to a single underaged patron? That is beyond irresponsible. Granted, the teen was willing to drink, and willing to pay a premium for the privilege... but the bar is responsible.
This is not a new case - this is a firmly established area of the law. Bars have been sued for these actions since... well I don't know when for this type of nonfeasance.
This is not a McDonald's cup of coffee case... This is not a tobacco case...
This is a distinctly different issue.
Explain to me, as if I were a child, how you think that the bar is not liable.
A friend of mine used to work at a bar and one night they had a guy who was way too drunk to drive. He was a regular and they knew he lived just a few blocks away. They took his keys for safe keeping and gave him a ride home. The drunk then got into his sisters car and proceded to drive it into a lake and die. His family then tried to sue the bar. In this case however there were smart people in the courtroom and the bar was not held liable.
At some point some of these people will still try to do something stupid. Holding the bar liable just gives the idiots the idea that "Hey, I can wipe out a carload of people and the bar will pay because it is their fault for serving me." Drunk drivers need harsher penalties for their crimes. We do not need to start blaming the people who did not commit the crime.
And as far as serving someone who is obviously intoxicated how do you know he was even the one buying the drinks? I have gone out with a large group and got quite drunk but only went up to the bar once for a pitcher. I was able to do this because other people in the group were buying as well. The bartender only saw me once so she never would have had the chance to cut me off but according to what some of you are saying she would still have been responsible if I had got in my car and drove away into an accident. It is the drunks fault. No one else is to blame.
Demosthenes
Senior member
Heck I'm surprised it's that small..... My ass got hit by a drunk driver on March 29th, he just pulled the good ol "100 mph through a red light". I got thrown out a window and went face first into the concrete... anyways, my "total bill" including early surgeries, hospital stay, therapy, post surgeries... is going to be well over a million bucks. Never knew I was worth so much. So it's not like the teenagers are gonna actually see much of that $, I bet most of it goes to their insurance.
why dont they sue the maker of the car the guy was driving? hell sue me for reading the news story about it, sue everyon1! diE EVEROYNE I WILLTH Esue yOU!!#!
at this moment i am sueing anandtech for making me wait to read pages cuz its slow
which means all the members will have to pay me cuz they are the ones making it slow
at this moment i am sueing anandtech for making me wait to read pages cuz its slow
which means all the members will have to pay me cuz they are the ones making it slow
DevilsAdvocate
Banned
yakko -
The case that you presented is clearly distinguishable. The bar fulfilled any possible obligation by delivering the drunk home, where he would be presumably safe. He then took it upon himself to drive... The judge should have poured the families out of court, IMHO. The bar fulfilled its obligation to insure safe passage of the drunk home.
Here the bar in question released the drunken idiot immediately on the streets... this is completely different.
"At some point some of these people will still try to do something stupid. Holding the bar liable just gives the idiots the idea that "Hey, I can wipe out a carload of people and the bar will pay because it is their fault for serving me." Drunk drivers need harsher penalties for their crimes. We do not need to start blaming the people who did not commit the crime."
No. There already are very harsh criminal penalties for this kind of behavior. Alcoholism is a disease that impairs judgement, and destroys peoples lives. Even with this disease, they are still both civilly and criminally liable for injuries they cause. Just because there is a bar involved... that does not get them off the hook.
Bars are licensed by the states they do business in. They have a responsibility to serve alcohol responsibly to its patrons. Here the bar served 23 beverages to one customer. That is atrocious.
"And as far as serving someone who is obviously intoxicated how do you know he was even the one buying the drinks?"
Testimony. The jury believed the kid, not the bar owner.
"I have gone out with a large group and got quite drunk but only went up to the bar once for a pitcher. I was able to do this because other people in the group were buying as well. The bartender only saw me once so she never would have had the chance to cut me off but according to what some of you are saying she would still have been responsible if I had got in my car and drove away into an accident."
This is an evidentiary issue... the question is whether the bar acted with reasonable diligence. Here, the case is pretty grotesque... 23 beverages to underaged kids.
You guys are picking a bad case as an example of how horrible the legal profession is. There are better ones.
"It is the drunks fault. No one else is to blame."
Tell that to the victims' (emphasis on the plural) and their families. You are wrong. The law has historically held bars liable for the actions of drunk patrons when the bars act so carelessly as to endanger a patron's life - by serving him far too many beverages and allowing him to drive home - endangering others.
Did anyone consider that Denton, Texas is a college town, and that they should have at least checked ID's? How about all of the ID's in the group? There was a high school dance that night, in a small town... Seems like the bar clearly shirked its responsibilities at every level.
The case that you presented is clearly distinguishable. The bar fulfilled any possible obligation by delivering the drunk home, where he would be presumably safe. He then took it upon himself to drive... The judge should have poured the families out of court, IMHO. The bar fulfilled its obligation to insure safe passage of the drunk home.
Here the bar in question released the drunken idiot immediately on the streets... this is completely different.
"At some point some of these people will still try to do something stupid. Holding the bar liable just gives the idiots the idea that "Hey, I can wipe out a carload of people and the bar will pay because it is their fault for serving me." Drunk drivers need harsher penalties for their crimes. We do not need to start blaming the people who did not commit the crime."
No. There already are very harsh criminal penalties for this kind of behavior. Alcoholism is a disease that impairs judgement, and destroys peoples lives. Even with this disease, they are still both civilly and criminally liable for injuries they cause. Just because there is a bar involved... that does not get them off the hook.
Bars are licensed by the states they do business in. They have a responsibility to serve alcohol responsibly to its patrons. Here the bar served 23 beverages to one customer. That is atrocious.
"And as far as serving someone who is obviously intoxicated how do you know he was even the one buying the drinks?"
Testimony. The jury believed the kid, not the bar owner.
"I have gone out with a large group and got quite drunk but only went up to the bar once for a pitcher. I was able to do this because other people in the group were buying as well. The bartender only saw me once so she never would have had the chance to cut me off but according to what some of you are saying she would still have been responsible if I had got in my car and drove away into an accident."
This is an evidentiary issue... the question is whether the bar acted with reasonable diligence. Here, the case is pretty grotesque... 23 beverages to underaged kids.
You guys are picking a bad case as an example of how horrible the legal profession is. There are better ones.
"It is the drunks fault. No one else is to blame."
Tell that to the victims' (emphasis on the plural) and their families. You are wrong. The law has historically held bars liable for the actions of drunk patrons when the bars act so carelessly as to endanger a patron's life - by serving him far too many beverages and allowing him to drive home - endangering others.
Did anyone consider that Denton, Texas is a college town, and that they should have at least checked ID's? How about all of the ID's in the group? There was a high school dance that night, in a small town... Seems like the bar clearly shirked its responsibilities at every level.
The driver is ultimately responsible for what he did. But the bar owners also need to be held accountable for what they do in certain situations.
If you knowingly sell bullets to a guy who SAYS he is going to go driving down the street and shoot randomly at houses....that store owner should be punished for what I think is a crime.
A bar owner KNOWS this person should not be driving....but will still sell him alcohol...knowing he will an obvious danger to society when he leaves....NO DIFFERENT than the bullet salesman.
If you knowingly sell bullets to a guy who SAYS he is going to go driving down the street and shoot randomly at houses....that store owner should be punished for what I think is a crime.
A bar owner KNOWS this person should not be driving....but will still sell him alcohol...knowing he will an obvious danger to society when he leaves....NO DIFFERENT than the bullet salesman.
Jmmsbnd007
Diamond Member
Only in america 😱
wfbberzerker
Lifer
reminds me of ultima ix 😀
Amused
Elite Member
Because there is no definable line, and the bar has no authority to test patrons. Where is the line, DA? Had the patron had 4 beers, and was legally drunk, should the bar be held liable? Where is that line drawn? Is the bar expected to rely solely on feelings? Are they to stop people who only "look or act drunk?" Or are they to stop people who test drunk? When I was in the army, I knew more than my fair share of guys who could down a case of beer in an evening, and not be overtly drunk. So just where is that line, DA?
Once that man leaves the bar, there is no moral or ethical obligation on the part of the bar owners. He is responsible for himself.
Tell me, had he walked accross the street and robbed a store, is the bar still liable? He did it only because he was drunk and it removed his inhibitions, just as his inhibitions to drive drunk were removed, as was his ability to drive safely.
This comes down to WHO is responsible for this man's DECISIONS after he leaves the bar. Is his deciding to rob the store any different than his deciding to drive? I say no. Both are irresponsible and probably wouldn't have happened had he not been drinking.
Where is the line drawn, DA? I have presented my opinion, and in it is a well defined and irrefutable line. Your opinion is nothing but a swamp of slippery slopes.
This is just another case in the US of people passing the buck on personal responsibility.
hahahahahahahaha That is funny. In most cases you can have your liscense permanently revoked and they will still let you own a car. The guy who smashed into the car my mom was a passenger in had already killed someone and killed two others in an accident after the one involving her. The guy who killed 7 people on one of the bridges here in the mid 80s has been out of jail for more then 10 years. The punishment is not harsh enough.
DevilsAdvocate
Banned
Amusedone -
"Because there is no definable line, and the bar has no authority to test patrons. Where is the line, DA? Had the patron had 4 beers, and was legally drunk, should the bar be held liable? Where is that line drawn? Is the bar expected to rely solely on feelings? Are they to stop people who only "look or act drunk?" Or are they to stop people who test drunk? When I was in the army, I knew more than my fair share of guys who could down a case of beer in an evening, and not be overtly drunk. So just where is that line, DA?"
Due diligence is the standard. Here there was not due diligence by the bar in question, serving 23 beverages to a single, UNDERAGED customer. Serving that many beverages to a single patron is negligence, regardless of whether he served in teh military and he could "handle it." You are the one muddying the water here, with the 4 beer question - negligence is a question of fact for a jury to answer. Juries vary, just like the idiots with keyboards here on ATOT. What is reasonable to one, is unreasonable to another. Here you are hard pressed to argue that it is reasonable to serve 23 to an UNDERAGED coustomer. The jury (correctly in my eyes and in the judge's) found that the bar negligently served liquor in excess to the patron, and did so at their own legal peril.
"Once that man leaves the bar, there is no moral or ethical obligation on the part of the bar owners. He is responsible for himself."
The bar had a legal obligation not SERVE HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE... nor intoxicate him to that point in the first place. There is nothing moral or ethical about this.
"Tell me, had he walked accross the street and robbed a store, is the bar still liable? He did it only because he was drunk and it removed his inhibitions, just as his inhibitions to drive drunk were removed, as was his ability to drive safely."
Different case. In my humble opinion, the robbery would be an intervening criminal act which would preclude the bar's liability. With drunk driving it is different, because it is reasonable to expect that an intoxicated customer will get behind the wheel of a car and will hurt somebody. Sorry. Bar not liable. Intoxication may operate as an excuse for the criminal act for the drunk robber, but more than likely he is going to the hole. Those cases usually get pled out. I don't see a TX court holding a bar criminally liable for robbery - it is simply too remote. The character of the offenses is simply far too different - one being a malum en se (robbery) and the other malum prohibitum (drunk driving)
Drunk driving is a logical consequence of intoxication - not robbery. Both can happen, but robbery is too remote. Not only that, bars go through licensing. This licensing requires classes that educate bar owners, bartenders, and others with respect to the liabilty of running a bar. Legal liability is a cost of doing business. The bar is liable, just as Ford is for a munfacturing defect on an Explorer that rolled. Both have insurance, as a cost of their business.
"Where is the line drawn, DA? I have presented my opinion, and in it is a well defined and irefutable line. Your opinion is nothing but a swamp of slippery slopes."
You presented a line that is not only unreasonable, but contrary to the law and public policy. If you hold only the patron liable, what is to stop a bar from serving an unlimited amount of liquor every night to its patrons, endangering society. With your line, it would make it profitable for the bar to do so... Bars cut people off all the time, because they understand the potential liability for not doing so. Ther bar across the street from my house does... I have seen them do it. It is just good public policy. What is the slippery slope? The standard is negligence. Juries deal with this issue daily - in a wide variety of actions. What is the big deal with this?
Bars are already liable - from sea to shining sea. They have been for years. There is nothing new here, except your indignance.
"This is just another case in the US of people passing the buck on personal responsibility."
You are wrong. In Texas, both are "joint and severally liable" - Here the kid and the bar are both are liable individually for the full amount of the judgement. The injured person is only entitled to one recovery of the judgement though.
We do not know the full amount of the damages at issue.... but the kid would probably pay to the extent of his auto insurance coverage, and the bar would be on the hook for its share... whatever it is. BOTH ARE RESPONSIBLE. There is no passing of the buck.
This is a bad case to pick to illustrate your point.
"Because there is no definable line, and the bar has no authority to test patrons. Where is the line, DA? Had the patron had 4 beers, and was legally drunk, should the bar be held liable? Where is that line drawn? Is the bar expected to rely solely on feelings? Are they to stop people who only "look or act drunk?" Or are they to stop people who test drunk? When I was in the army, I knew more than my fair share of guys who could down a case of beer in an evening, and not be overtly drunk. So just where is that line, DA?"
Due diligence is the standard. Here there was not due diligence by the bar in question, serving 23 beverages to a single, UNDERAGED customer. Serving that many beverages to a single patron is negligence, regardless of whether he served in teh military and he could "handle it." You are the one muddying the water here, with the 4 beer question - negligence is a question of fact for a jury to answer. Juries vary, just like the idiots with keyboards here on ATOT. What is reasonable to one, is unreasonable to another. Here you are hard pressed to argue that it is reasonable to serve 23 to an UNDERAGED coustomer. The jury (correctly in my eyes and in the judge's) found that the bar negligently served liquor in excess to the patron, and did so at their own legal peril.
"Once that man leaves the bar, there is no moral or ethical obligation on the part of the bar owners. He is responsible for himself."
The bar had a legal obligation not SERVE HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE... nor intoxicate him to that point in the first place. There is nothing moral or ethical about this.
"Tell me, had he walked accross the street and robbed a store, is the bar still liable? He did it only because he was drunk and it removed his inhibitions, just as his inhibitions to drive drunk were removed, as was his ability to drive safely."
Different case. In my humble opinion, the robbery would be an intervening criminal act which would preclude the bar's liability. With drunk driving it is different, because it is reasonable to expect that an intoxicated customer will get behind the wheel of a car and will hurt somebody. Sorry. Bar not liable. Intoxication may operate as an excuse for the criminal act for the drunk robber, but more than likely he is going to the hole. Those cases usually get pled out. I don't see a TX court holding a bar criminally liable for robbery - it is simply too remote. The character of the offenses is simply far too different - one being a malum en se (robbery) and the other malum prohibitum (drunk driving)
Drunk driving is a logical consequence of intoxication - not robbery. Both can happen, but robbery is too remote. Not only that, bars go through licensing. This licensing requires classes that educate bar owners, bartenders, and others with respect to the liabilty of running a bar. Legal liability is a cost of doing business. The bar is liable, just as Ford is for a munfacturing defect on an Explorer that rolled. Both have insurance, as a cost of their business.
"Where is the line drawn, DA? I have presented my opinion, and in it is a well defined and irefutable line. Your opinion is nothing but a swamp of slippery slopes."
You presented a line that is not only unreasonable, but contrary to the law and public policy. If you hold only the patron liable, what is to stop a bar from serving an unlimited amount of liquor every night to its patrons, endangering society. With your line, it would make it profitable for the bar to do so... Bars cut people off all the time, because they understand the potential liability for not doing so. Ther bar across the street from my house does... I have seen them do it. It is just good public policy. What is the slippery slope? The standard is negligence. Juries deal with this issue daily - in a wide variety of actions. What is the big deal with this?
Bars are already liable - from sea to shining sea. They have been for years. There is nothing new here, except your indignance.
"This is just another case in the US of people passing the buck on personal responsibility."
You are wrong. In Texas, both are "joint and severally liable" - Here the kid and the bar are both are liable individually for the full amount of the judgement. The injured person is only entitled to one recovery of the judgement though.
We do not know the full amount of the damages at issue.... but the kid would probably pay to the extent of his auto insurance coverage, and the bar would be on the hook for its share... whatever it is. BOTH ARE RESPONSIBLE. There is no passing of the buck.
This is a bad case to pick to illustrate your point.
DevilsAdvocate
Banned
yakko -
Contact your state legislator. I agree that punishments should be harsher. 🙂
Contact your state legislator. I agree that punishments should be harsher. 🙂
OMG. That is ridiculous, whats next suing someone for being injured while breaking into their home? Oh wait. As if it wasn't bad enough that the injured students were ignorant enough to sue the bar instead of seaking punative damages from the person who actually caused the accident, the jury was ignorant enough to actually buy that BS that the bar is responsible. People have to take responsibility for their own actions. Does this mean if I go out and beat the living crap out of somebody, they can sue my Tae Kwon Do school? I am sure the school would be able to pay out more money that I could. When did Americans start measuring right and wrong by the size of the pocket book? What a bunch of panzies we have become.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
