Who's responsible for for the drunk?

[nobbie48]

Forum Sponsor

I know this has been hacked around before but where does the law draw the line if you serve someone or in any other way provide it to someone who then gets into a collision? Has any standard of responsibility been set?

It does happen. A friend of mine had a house party a number of years ago and, among others, invited a female co-worker and told her to bring a date if she wanted. Her date had a drink and then decided the party wasn't to his tastes and they left. No one knew he had tipped a few back before going to the party.

The guy had a serious crash right after leaving the party, my friend was named in the lawsuit and spent the next few years worrying about losing his house. He didn't, but I don't know if he ever recouped his legal expenses. I hear numbers of 10 grand if a lawyer has to take things way up the chain and with your house at stake you don't want to defend yourself with Cole's Notes.

The TV commercials make it look so easy to be a pal but if you know any mean drunks you realize the consequences of trying to take their keys and besides, you don't want him puking on your sofa.

Bars have training programs hopefully to protect themselves etc but what do you do with a house party? If instead you took a few friends out to celebrate would you be distanced from a suit by the bar's involvement?

My friend got hit by a ricochet. The person he invited was OK but her date wasn't. Again, any black and white standards?

 

[OpenGambit]

I know this has been hacked around before but where does the law draw the line if you serve someone or in any other way provide it to someone who then gets into a collision? Has any standard of responsibility been set?

It does happen. A friend of mine had a house party a number of years ago and, among others, invited a female co-worker and told her to bring a date if she wanted. Her date had a drink and then decided the party wasn't to his tastes and they left. No one knew he had tipped a few back before going to the party.

The guy had a serious crash right after leaving the party, my friend was named in the lawsuit and spent the next few years worrying about losing his house. He didn't, but I don't know if he ever recouped his legal expenses. I hear numbers of 10 grand if a lawyer has to take things way up the chain and with your house at stake you don't want to defend yourself with Cole's Notes.

The TV commercials make it look so easy to be a pal but if you know any mean drunks you realize the consequences of trying to take their keys and besides, you don't want him puking on your sofa.

Bars have training programs hopefully to protect themselves etc but what do you do with a house party? If instead you took a few friends out to celebrate would you be distanced from a suit by the bar's involvement?

My friend got hit by a ricochet. The person he invited was OK but her date wasn't. Again, any black and white standards?

Easy one - Supreme Court Decision : Childs v. Desormeaux
- I am not going to take the time to summarize this but you can find good ones just by googling the style of clause above

Link to decision:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2006/2006scc18/2006scc18.html

 

[Amazon]

I just did my smart serve 2 weeks ago, and from what I learned is, if some dumb fpool gets drunk and then injures himself, injures someone else, breaks stuff, or just anything, the servers, bartender, manager and or bouncer is responsible. It's dumb

 

[EngineerJoe]

Easy one - Supreme Court Decision : Childs v. Desormeaux

So let's make it more difficult and cite the following

Social hosts of parties where alcohol is served do not owe a duty of care to public users of highways. The proximity necessary to meet the first stage of the Anns test has not been established. First, the injury to C was not reasonably foreseeable on the facts established in this case. There was no finding by the trial judge that the hosts knew, or ought to have known, that D, who was leaving the party driving, was impaired. Also, although the hosts knew that D had gotten drunk in the past and driven, a history of alcohol consumption and impaired driving does not make impaired driving, and the consequent risk to other motorists, reasonably foreseeable. Second, even if foreseeability were established, no duty would arise because the wrong alleged is a failure to act or nonfeasance in circumstances where there was no positive duty to act. No duty to monitor guests’ drinking or to prevent them from driving can be imposed having regard to the relevant legal principles. A social host at a party where alcohol is served is not under a duty of care to members of the public who may be injured by a guest’s actions, unless the host’s conduct implicates him or her in the creation or exacerbation of the risk. Short of active implication, a host is entitled to respect the autonomy of a guest. The consumption of alcohol, and the assumption of the risks of impaired judgment, is in almost all cases a personal choice and an inherently personal activity. Absent the special considerations that may apply in the commercial context, when such a choice is made by an adult, there is no reason why others should be made to bear its costs. Lastly, with respect to the factor of reasonable reliance, there is no evidence that anyone relied on the hosts in this case to monitor guests’ intake of alcohol or prevent intoxicated guests from driving. While, in the commercial context, it is reasonable to expect that the provider will act to protect the public interest, the same cannot be said of the private social host, who neither undertakes nor is expected to monitor the conduct of guests on behalf of the public. [24‑32] [38‑47]

What if the host, who isn't selling alcohol, has SmaartServe training?

 

[OpenGambit]

So let's make it more difficult and cite the following



What if the host, who isn't selling alcohol, has SmaartServe training?

I don't see how that makes any difference whether the host is capable or trained, the point is they do NOT owe a duty of care. That would not change even if the host was a lawyer, judge, politiican, construction worker, cop, or captain america.

Do keep in mind though that this is a BYOB party.

the part in the paragraph that you should pay attention to is this "unless the host’s conduct implicates him or her in the creation or exacerbation of the risk"

So if you are encouraging your guests to drink more and do beer bongs and stuff... different story.

 

[OpenGambit]

I just did my smart serve 2 weeks ago, and from what I learned is, if some dumb fpool gets drunk and then injures himself, injures someone else, breaks stuff, or just anything, the servers, bartender, manager and or bouncer is responsible. It's dumb

So you believe that a commerical establishment should have no responsiblity whatsoever for overserving somebody?

 

[GreyGhost]

I just did my smart serve 2 weeks ago, and from what I learned is, if some dumb fpool gets drunk and then injures himself, injures someone else, breaks stuff, or just anything, the servers, bartender, manager and or bouncer is responsible. It's dumb

Commercial establishments must be held to a much higher duty of care. They are in a situation with a clear conflict of interest, they make more money by serving more booze, if they were not held responsible for the actions of their patrons, they wouldn't cut people off.

Tying the money-making establishment to the behaviour of their patrons I think is a reasonable way of self-policing. Over-serve if you want, but you will probably lose in court. If someone does something dumb and you can show evidence that you tried to prevent it (ie. only sold them 1 drink, cut them off, etc.) the commercial establishment should not be responsible for the idiot.

 

[EngineerJoe]

I don't see how that makes any difference whether the host is capable or trained, the point is they do NOT owe a duty of care.

In my mind, I was drawing a parallel between this and an engineering case which we studied in part for the PPE (I'll find the information tonight). But the more I think about it, the more I realize that it's too much of a stretch.

unless the host’s conduct implicates him or her in the creation or exacerbation of the risk[/B]"

So if you are encouraging your guests to drink more and do beer bongs and stuff... different story.

Not to nit-pick, but does it have to be 'Encouraging'? If you provide the alcohol, yet you're not encouraging drinking like you would at a College / University party, you COULD be held responsible? What if you make reasonable attempts to provide accommodations for those believed to be intoxicated?

 

[OpenGambit]

In my mind, I was drawing a parallel between this and an engineering case which we studied in part for the PPE (I'll find the information tonight). But the more I think about it, the more I realize that it's too much of a stretch.


Not to nit-pick, but does it have to be 'Encouraging'? If you provide the alcohol, yet you're not encouraging drinking like you would at a College / University party, you COULD be held responsible? What if you make reasonable attempts to provide accommodations for those believed to be intoxicated?

Unfortuately, this is not something where I can give a solid answer, as each case turns on its facts,
but I think simple provision of acholol like having a couple of bottles of wine at at dinner party is safe because of this line:

"Short of active implication, a host is entitled to respect the autonomy of a guest. The consumption of alcohol, and the assumption of the risks of impaired judgment, is in almost all cases a personal choice and an inherently personal activity. Absent the special considerations that may apply in the commercial context, when such a choice is made by an adult, there is no reason why others should be made to bear its costs."

 

[Amazon]

So you believe that a commerical establishment should have no responsiblity whatsoever for overserving somebody?

No, you shouldn't obviously over serve someone, but how are you supposed to know when someone has passed the legal blood alcohol limit for driving? not everyone shows it as much. People should be responsible for their own safety and know their drinking limits. They also shouldn't even bother thinking of driving home if they're going out drinking, so I don't see how the drinkers idiocy should be the servers fault.

 

[OpenGambit]

No, you shouldn't obviously over serve someone, but how are you supposed to know when someone has passed the legal blood alcohol limit for driving? not everyone shows it as much. People should be responsible for their own safety and know their drinking limits. They also shouldn't even bother thinking of driving home if they're going out drinking, so I don't see how the drinkers idiocy should be the servers fault.

I took a similar course maybe ten years ago but I thought threshold was "visibily intoxicated" not legal limit.
I have also never heard of any server being personally liable.

 

[Fiery254]

So you believe that a commerical establishment should have no responsiblity whatsoever for overserving somebody?

Maybe a criminal responsibility. But getting sued by a drunk who crashed his car is ****ed up. I've broken bones after nights on the piss. The furthest thing from my mind was to go back and sue the people who'd served me. I screwed up, I should pay the price. To me it's a basic social responsibility.

 

[OpenGambit]

Maybe a criminal responsibility. But getting sued by a drunk who crashed his car is ****ed up. I've broken bones after nights on the piss. The furthest thing from my mind was to go back and sue the people who'd served me. I screwed up, I should pay the price. To me it's a basic social responsibility.

you would take criminal liablity over a civil one? you know that bars just carry insurance right?

 

[Fiery254]

you would take criminal liablity over a civil one? you know that bars just carry insurance right?

If there is (and there may well be) a law which prevents the sale of alcohol to people already drunk then bar owners should be prosecuted. But a civil case is so subjective and allows a fool with a good lawyer to cast his cash net far and wide and see what he hauls in, on the back of his/her **** up.

TBH i'd rather take no responsibility but the nanny state is in full effect so there's no escaping some responsibility. That's why I stay on the corret side of the bar at all times.

 

[turbodish]

If there is (and there may well be) a law which prevents the sale of alcohol to people already drunk ...

There is. Drunk means visibly intoxicated. The legal limit is not relevant to visible intoxication as some people can be visibly intoxicated even below the legal limit, especially if they are small in stature, taking certain medications, or even just fatigued in addition to drinking.

 

[OpenGambit]

You have a highly incorrect view of Canadian Tort law if you think that any injured person is cashing in on anything.

 

[Fiery254]

Maybe I do, I frankly don't care. My basic point stands. Being able to sue some third party after you royally screw up isn't right in my opinion. And with that I'm off to the pub. Now where are my car keys.............

 

[OpenGambit]

Maybe I do, I frankly don't care. My basic point stands. Being able to sue some third party after you royally screw up isn't right in my opinion. And with that I'm off to the pub. Now where are my car keys.............

Oh I see, well keep complaining about problems that don't really exist then.

 

[EngineerJoe]

I took a similar course maybe ten years ago but I thought threshold was "visibily intoxicated" not legal limit.

This would make sense. I've seen drunks (functioning alcoholics) nearly 3x the legal limit nearly get past the cops.

Edit: To add, I understand why laws are on the books to prevent the selling of alcohol to anyone that's visibly intoxicated. I've been cut off before, even though the bartender KNEW I had no vehicle and I had a DD. She stopped serving me even though I felt I was fine to keep drinking (I knew I was drunk, I knew I wasn't driving home, I'm a very happy drunk, so what's the harm?) What I didn't realize is how drunk I was, and how close I was to alcohol poisoning. My friends didn't try to stop me (well, they wouldn't sneak me any alcohol after I was cut-off), & my family didn't try to stop me either. The bartender was the responsible one.

I agree that I should be responsible for my actions (I'm the last guy to argue otherwise), but if out of stupidity I've put myself in a state where I can no longer make that call, someone has to make it for me. Put the onus on the bartender and establishment and enforce it with penalties.

 

[knowledge]

No, you shouldn't obviously over serve someone, but how are you supposed to know when someone has passed the legal blood alcohol limit for driving? not everyone shows it as much. People should be responsible for their own safety and know their drinking limits. They also shouldn't even bother thinking of driving home if they're going out drinking, so I don't see how the drinkers idiocy should be the servers fault.

That's why you're supposed to be cautious. At the end of the day, it's on the server - even if the bouncer let a drunk person in. Everyone's responsible, but guess who gets the shittiest end of the stick? The server.

According to smart serve, no matter what, it's ALWAYS your fault. lol

Forum Sponsor