the27thelement
Well-known member
Exactly!
Who's responsible for for the drunk?
- Thread starter nobbie48
- Start date
your level of being responsible and level of bring held responsible can be different.
You can do all the right stuff and still have to defend yourself.
anybody remember the case several years ago near Elmvale? Woman leaves company Christmas party, goes to local bar keeps partying, wrecks car. Company, Company owner, bar owner/ bar server all named in the lawsuit.
It may not be the driver of the car, it could be the family of the "victim" bringing forward the suit. Insurance companies will eventually settle it out but it can certainly be a financial drain.
You can do all the right stuff and still have to defend yourself.
anybody remember the case several years ago near Elmvale? Woman leaves company Christmas party, goes to local bar keeps partying, wrecks car. Company, Company owner, bar owner/ bar server all named in the lawsuit.
It may not be the driver of the car, it could be the family of the "victim" bringing forward the suit. Insurance companies will eventually settle it out but it can certainly be a financial drain.
That is the reason I asked the question but I thought it was Keswick, not that the location is particularly important. I wanted to know if new standards had been set to clarify who is responsible for what.
On top of the financial drain is the war of nerves and "life on hold syndrome". ie Why paint the kitchen if we're going to lose the house? Should we stop taking vacations to save $$. etc etc. Every time the lawyer leaves a message is it a new attack or a repreive? Try that for a couple of years.
Anyone want to go out for some wings and a glass of milk?
Personally I don't think law should be a black and white situation. I don't like the thought of frivolous law suits with lawyers on contingency fees. However neither do I like the thought of a bar or even private individual being able to walk away laughing after their blatently careless actions caused someone harm.
The way I read the responses is that a bar has a big responsibility but a person throwing a normal house party does not. However that hopefully doesn't protect the home owner if he spikes peoples drinks or entraps a recovering alcoholic etc.
Oh great, another re-direction of responsibility. Nobody wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore.
When we create laws like this we prevent Darwin's law from taking place, hence, we get idiots in our later generations. I feel sorry for kids 50yrs from now
When we create laws like this we prevent Darwin's law from taking place, hence, we get idiots in our later generations. I feel sorry for kids 50yrs from now
OpenGambit
Banned
A lot of realy narrow views.
You do realize that the issue is more to allow the person who is injured by the drunk to sue the bar.
That is not as all a misdirection of responsibilty, That is making a commerical establishment pay for the societal costs of its business.
Unless you have a better idea for protecting the 3rd party victim, by all means share it.
Why don't the victim sue the person directly harming her? Or get the benefits from their insurance co.?
That just open possibilities for somebody to cash-in on some hard working establishment. No wonder they told me running a business ain't that easy, because of the ppl looking to leach off u
OpenGambit
Banned
because if the drunk isn't driving, he probably doesn't have insurance.
So if the drunk doesn't have the money for whatever reason you think that the 3rd party should just end up with nothing? Is that fair to you?
So if the drunk doesn't have the money for whatever reason you think that the 3rd party should just end up with nothing? Is that fair to you?
If he's not driving, what harm can he cause? Am I missing something here?
So is it fair for a business owner to be bankrupt because they had to pay for someone else's mistakes??
EngineerJoe
Well-known member
Is this getting into Tort law? Doesn't the person have to suffer financial loss (or potential financial loss) for them to collect?
I can't remember everything I studied in law, but it's not unheard of that the 3rd party is able to collect from the employer of the accused (acknowledging that the employer is NOT at fault) because the employer has more funds than the accused. There are engineering cases where the employer was held financially accountable simply for this reason. Can't remember if there was a term for this.
Last edited:
If the law views it a business' responsibility to take reasonable precautions to ensure their product or service is not harmful to the public, then they are holding people responsible for their actions.
Dunno where I stand on this question, but that's a perspective that seems to justify holding an establishment liable for it's patron's drunkenness.
OpenGambit
Banned
As a person in the corporate commerical sector, I can tell you companies pay for other people's mistakes all the time,
it is also true that 99 % of those risk are insurable and does not result in the company going bankrupt.
There are an infinite amount of situations where a drunk leaving a bar can cause harm to a 3rd party, and in many of those situations, the drunk isn't going to have insurance.
So given the choice between someone who is injured having no resource, and a commerical establishment's insurance company paying some money. I choose the injured person, 100 % of the time.
This isn't so much about principle as it is about what is the just palatable result. And I dont' think the result that leaves the victim without recourse can be accepted.
OpenGambit
Banned
If you are talking about garnishing wages, thats just standard collections actions
If you are talking about having the drunk's employer held liable for his mistakes while he is drinking. That is not going to happen, unless the drinking and injury happenen during the course of his employment, and even then. I doubt it.
I don't think all businesses are insured. But what do I know?
Going back to the OP's scenario, how will those principles hold?
They're just suing an average Joe who probably had a kegger. I highly doubt he had insurance for that event. I don't know if his house insurance will cover such an event
OpenGambit
Banned
Well not buying insurance a choice you make as a business owner, not buying insurance if you are a bar is just completely bonkers.
In the OP's scenario, the hosts wouldn't be liable, as already stated above.
How does the law determine that a bar is responsible for another adult?
What if I am an adult with a high threshold for alcohol, I'm enjoying my 5th beer, but a teenage bar tender refused to serve me a 6th beer because he thinks I've had enough??
I guess some ppl are willing to give up a bit of freedom for some "sense" of security. Sorry, not for me
OpenGambit
Banned
Maybe you should ask the guy who gets hurt whether he is willing to get shafted without prospect of compensation for your "freedom" to drink too much.
Only a person who has never lived in a society without basic freedoms would disgrace the principle with such asinine analogies.
When we pick up a bottle we begin to accept certain consequences. Thats why most bottles states "please drink responsibly"
OpenGambit
Banned
What does that have to do with leaving a victim with no remedy by preventing him from sueing, if the drunk decides not to be responsible and has no money.
Right. NOTHING
All you think about is OMG someone telling you I can't have another beer, and that somehow that infringes your "freedom" ( btw no one went to war for that freedom). Trying thinking about it from the perspective of telling the guy who is now in a wheelchair that they are now screwed for life because the druink who hit them wasn't insured and you can't sue the bar because Rockerguy doesn't like the idea of being told he has had enough.
gee.. screw someone over for life? or ask a bar to buy insurance.... hard choice...
Let me guess, you also believe that if your car malfunctions, hits another car, injuring those occupants, they shouldnt' have a right to sue your vehicle's manufacturer?
Its the same thing, and if you can't see that, thats fine, because luckily for our society, the law can.
Last edited:
Maybe that drunk should decide for himself not to F around because he do not have enough money or insurance to cover himself.
I hate the fact that we have laws so Big Brother can help think for them rather than thinking and rationalizing on their own. Some ppl must be brain dead.
