Jump to content

DUIs: It's the bartender's fault!


Bitani
 Share

Recommended Posts

Suppose a person already has alcohol in their car before they go into a bar. They have some drinks before they go into the bar that have not yet taken affect. They drink more in the bar in a short period of time and are refused service after it becomes apparent they shouldn't be served more. The person then gets into their car and drinks some more of what they have, finishing the last of it and disposing of the container. Then they drive off and get into an accident.

The bar did not serve them while they were in an intoxicated state and cut them off when they consumed faster than was prudent. The patron left.

How was the bar to know they had consumed before they arrived? How can they escape the accusation of serving them too much when in reality the patron had his own liquor in the car and disposed of the empty bottle before driving off?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a load of shit. This isn't some great step for victims rights, its a jobs program for liquor control agents and another piece of nanny legislation. As stated above the law has been on the books for some time now. It isn't enforced very often. Bars, especially the hole in the wall gin joints that I frequent, don't cut people off for being drunk. If they did karaoke would vanish overnight. Bars cut people off if they're being obnoxious or falling down/falling asleep etc, and even then I've seen bartenders just let 'em sleep it off on the bar.

I want the law to go after Ben and Jerry and Coca-Cola for giving me the Diabetus.

They should also go after pork farmers of America. They served my grandma too much bacon and she died of heart disease. I'm a victim! I have rights!

Better go after the guy that sold those drunk drivers all that gasoline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nonsense, utter nonsense.

My only thought is that they would have to prove malice on the part of the bartender to make anything stick - the bartender would have to knowingly serve an obviously drunk person with multiple witnesses. I'd think that would be a hard door to open.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet da gubment won't shut down MacDonalds for making stupid people obese.

It's not their fault they fat.

Anything to get our focus off the real issues.

:cheers: Yep, exactly, they basically just want to not deal with what is really wrong with society. Example; right now you can get a Big Mac for $.25 after you buy another. So let's think about this, I can get a Big Mac extra value meal for like $4.99, then add another sammich for $.25, or $5.25, totaling over 150g fat, and like 2500calories, but no one does anything about regulating any of that becasue we have choices.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the whole thing but is the new part that they are going to actively track down where the person was served and hold them responsible?

Because if it is saying the bars and bartenders can be held responsible, this isn't anything new at all and has been legally allowed since at least 2004 in my personal experience. It is just that it was complete rare for it ever to come back on them.

Also, once again...I hate the direction of New America so much

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the whole thing but is the new part that they are going to actively track down where the person was served and hold them responsible?

Because if it is saying the bars and bartenders can be held responsible, this isn't anything new at all and has been legally allowed since at least 2004 in my personal experience. It is just that it was complete rare for it ever to come back on them.

Also, once again...I hate the direction of New America so much

New push for enforcement. Actively investigating the source of the alcohol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a 'sue happy' society. Heck even people who are found not guilty in a court of law now can face a ridiculous civil suit afterwards.

Our land is led and driven by lawyers, and who is it that always stands to gain big $$$ whenever a lawsuit occurs? Not the plaintiff, or the accused but rather the lawyer. So these leaders love to open more doors to more lawsuits. And we pay either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently no one that has commented has been a server in the past 6 years. I was at Bdubs and there is an entire class and test on over serving someone. Yes it can be possible for the victim...not the drunk....to come back at the establishment for over serving someone. If they leave the building drunk off their ass, it is the establishment and the servers responsibility to an extent to make an effort to stop them from driving.

It makes sense to and certain point for me to at least offer them a cab (and there are ways for the establishment to foot the bill as well) or a glass of water and a chair. I agree however that it is ultimately the individual dumbasses responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apparently no one that has commented has been a server in the past 6 years. I was at Bdubs and there is an entire class and test on over serving someone. Yes it can be possible for the victim...not the drunk....to come back at the establishment for over serving someone. If they leave the building drunk off their ass, it is the establishment and the servers responsibility to an extent to make an effort to stop them from driving.

It makes sense to and certain point for me to at least offer them a cab (and there are ways for the establishment to foot the bill as well) or a glass of water and a chair. I agree however that it is ultimately the individual dumbasses responsibility.

To the OP, welcome to DRAMSHOP, albiet, about 30 years too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop

As a bartender and server, I have taken those courses and gone through the drill. The profit motive is also at fault as their establishment profitability depends on amount of liquor consumed.

Like most things, personal responsibility (or lack there of) is always the root cause. State has to step in and play nanny because Joe and Jane are unable to make the correct rational decisions or accept responsibility when they F-up!!!!!!

If you think the law is F-ed up, wait till you get the premium for the insurance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For over 50 years, and three generations it has been tradition for my family to work the bar at my gun clubs monthly meetings. Nothing complicated, just draft beer, and a very limited number of people attend the meetings. All are either members of the club, or guests, so it's not like there's complete strangers walking in off the street just to drink. But, two years ago, the clubs legal counsel decided it was in the clubs best interest to have us go to some bar-tending class and get a piece of paper saying we had training to be bartenders. The more I looked in to it, this is exactly what they were looking at, the legal ramifications of someone leaving there and turning around and suing the club. They were looking to cover their ass, and I figured by having us "trained", it was taking the liability off of them, and putting it on us serving. I decided it isn't worth sticking my neck out there and stopped working the bar. What a crappy direction society has decided to go. :nono:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...