Who's responsible for for the drunk?

[OpenGambit]

Forum Sponsor

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.

So in your world the victims harmed by the drunk just gets screwed if the drunk doesn't carry insurance.

Gotcha.

Don't change your tune if you end up being that guy.

Interesting that you think that people have the "right" to drink as much as they want without being cut off by the bar, and then when they go out and hurt someone else, the victim just gets screwed.

by interesting I mean that you are the only braindead one here.

 

[nobbie48]

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

While it's true that the breweries don't tie people down, stick funnels in their mouths and pour in the suds they do spend billions in R & D and advertizing to encourage people to drink. It is psychological warfare and brain washing against people who have had no training. "Drink our beer and the blond with the big fake boobs will think you're cool." When you brainwash someone into an action you are also responsible for the outcome.

 

[alkaline nine]

Maybe we could reclassify bars and homes as a closed circuit course (ex: race tracks) and have waivers signed upon entry. No direct liability to the provider of the event. Risk and responsibility to fall solely on Patron using facility, and there afterwards. Ya thats the answer lol

 

[fastar1]

So in your world the victims harmed by the drunk just gets screwed if the drunk doesn't carry insurance.

Gotcha.

Don't change your tune if you end up being that guy.

Interesting that you think that people have the "right" to drink as much as they want without being cut off by the bar, and then when they go out and hurt someone else, the victim just gets screwed.

by interesting I mean that you are the only braindead one here.

I dunno how Rocker Guy feels but I for one would appreciate if you tried to restrain yourself on the insults. You can do better than that.

I also don't see how you can defend your view with the arguments you are presenting. I mean, if the guy who actually caused the harm has no money then the victim should just move down the chain of responsibility until they find someone wealthy enough to sue? Couldn't that argument be made for every grievance? Say a kid skateboards into some elderly person and injures them. His parents are poor so the victim should sue the guy who sold him the skateboard? What about vehicular homicide. Say they can't convict the guy who did it because he's in another country that won't extradite, should they be allowed to go after whoever gave him a pass on his driver's test? Is that justice?

Sometimes bad things happen to people by no fault of their own and there's no recourse for remedy. Why should this be any different.

It also has nothing to do with how bad you feel for the injured party. That's no justification for assessing tort where there may not be any.

 

[fastar1]

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

I doubt there can ever be any hard and fast rule, it has to be a question of judgement.

An equivalent scenario might be if an adventure company refuses to take a certain individual on a particularly difficult exercise because they doubt his judgement or ability to execute it safely. It wouldn't be any kind of valid excuse for them to just say after he injures himself "well he wanted to go!"

 

[turbodish]

Maybe we could reclassify bars and homes as a closed circuit course (ex: race tracks) and have waivers signed upon entry. No direct liability to the provider of the event. Risk and responsibility to fall solely on Patron using facility, and there afterwards. Ya thats the answer lol

The waivers mean very little. People sign waivers all the time at race tracks, and injured/killed participants and their families still launch multi-million $ lawsuits that have to be defended.

The waiver that you sign at the gate has all the strength of wet toilet paper when it comes to protecting against legal action or civil awards. There is still a duty of care that must be met, waiver or not.

 

[OpenGambit]

I dunno how Rocker Guy feels but I for one would appreciate if you tried to restrain yourself on the insults. You can do better than that.

I also don't see how you can defend your view with the arguments you are presenting. I mean, if the guy who actually caused the harm has no money then the victim should just move down the chain of responsibility until they find someone wealthy enough to sue? Couldn't that argument be made for every grievance? Say a kid skateboards into some elderly person and injures them. His parents are poor so the victim should sue the guy who sold him the skateboard? What about vehicular homicide. Say they can't convict the guy who did it because he's in another country that won't extradite, should they be allowed to go after whoever gave him a pass on his driver's test? Is that justice?

Sometimes bad things happen to people by no fault of their own and there's no recourse for remedy. Why should this be any different.

It also has nothing to do with how bad you feel for the injured party. That's no justification for assessing tort where there may not be any.

By defending a bar in this instance, you are saying that a profit making entity which makes money off of creating a known societal risk and can purchase liability insurance, should not have any incentive for minimizing that risk or be held liable for the manifestation of that risk.

None of your examples involve that consideration and the law absolutely 100 % disagrees with you.

This has everything to do with allocation of responsiblity, ask yourself why the victim should be the one that pays for the risk that is created by the bar's business.. Thats justice?

**** happens, thats why you are in a wheelchair when the guy that made money of of the events that put you there get to keep doing it with no repercussions! yay!

Bunch of guys talking about personal responsibility, how about being a responsible business and not ******** on everyone else?

 

[fastar1]

By defending a bar in this instance, you are saying that a profit making entity which makes money off of creating a known societal risk and can purchase liability insurance, should not have any incentive for minimizing that risk or be held liable for the manifestation of that risk.

None of your examples involve that consideration and the law absolutely 100 % disagrees with you.

This has everything to do with allocation of responsiblity, ask yourself why the victim should be the one that pays for the risk that is created by the bar's business.. Thats justice?

**** happens, thats why you are in a wheelchair when the guy that made money of of the events that put you there get to keep doing it with no repercussions! yay!

Bunch of guys talking about personal responsibility, how about being a responsible business and not ******** on everyone else?

That's almost all a completely different argument than what I had been understanding from you so far. Yes, I can see how there is sense in assigning some responsibility to the establishment that served the alcohol, sure.

But it has nothing to do with whether the drunk is rich or poor. And it has nothing to do with the victim's bad fortune and future outlook. It simply has to do with being responsible for one's actions, in particular one's business transactions and any public risk associated with it.

 

[OpenGambit]

That's almost all a completely different argument than what I had been understanding from you so far. Yes, I can see how there is sense in assigning some responsibility to the establishment that served the alcohol, sure.

But it has nothing to do with whether the drunk is rich or poor. And it has nothing to do with the victim's bad fortune and future outlook. It simply has to do with being responsible for one's actions, in particular one's business transactions and any public risk associated with it.

Actually it has everything to do with whether the negligent person can pay, and everything to do with the victim's future outlook. This is Tort law, its about compensation, this isnt' criminal law, there is no reasonable doubt here, its just look at something and saying hmm.. who should be the one that is going to take responsibility for what happened... Is it the innocent victim? or the bar that overserved someone cause they make mroe money that way... Not exactly a hard decision.

If the negligent person was able to pay in every instance, there would have never been a need for a Court to consider whether someoen else should also take responsibilty.
Whether you like it or not, Tort law in theory, not just practice, is extremely cognizant of abilty to pay.

Well guess what, the courts saw way too many people getting injured, and having no recourse because the person who injured them HAS NO MONEY. Thats why we introducted mandatory insurance for cars, corporations, businesses, etc etc to try to minimize those situations.

 

[fastar1]

Actually it has everything to do with whether the negligent person can pay, and everything to do with the victim's future outlook. This is Tort law, its about compensation, this isnt' criminal law, there is no reasonable doubt here, its just look at something and saying hmm.. who should be the one that is going to take responsibility for what happened... Is it the innocent victim? or the bar that overserved someone cause they make mroe money that way... Not exactly a hard decision.

If the negligent person was able to pay in every instance, there would have never been a need for a Court to consider whether someoen else should also take responsibilty.
Whether you like it or not, Tort law in theory, not just practice, is extremely cognizant of abilty to pay.

Sure it considers ability to pay, but not for the sake of determining responsibility. C'mon man, look at the examples I used to try and dispell that notion. Ability to pay has no bearing on responsibility otherwise you'd just keep going down the chain of events that lead up to the incident until you landed on mister moneybags!

Well guess what, the courts saw way too many people getting injured, and having no recourse because the person who injured them HAS NO MONEY. Thats why we introducted mandatory insurance for cars, corporations, businesses, etc etc to try to minimize those situations.

Having insurance or not never changed the degree of responsibility, it always remained with the driver. This actually supports what I'm saying; ability or inability to pay does not shift any individual's degree of responsibility for damage.

 

[OpenGambit]

Sure it considers ability to pay, but not for the sake of determining responsibility. C'mon man, look at the examples I used to try and dispell that notion. Ability to pay has no bearing on responsibility otherwise you'd just keep going down the chain of events that lead up to the incident until you landed on mister moneybags!



Having insurance or not never changed the degree of responsibility, it always remained with the driver. This actually supports what I'm saying; ability or inability to pay does not shift any individual's degree of responsibility for damage.

what I am telling you is that this isn't about principle and this is about result.

and the desired result is to NOT have victims have no recourse.
Not everything can be solved with courts. lawmakers also have a place and thats why mandatory insurance was put in.

Looking at the evolution of tort law as though it is just some kinda of evolution of placing responsibilty is missing the point entirely.

The concept of ability to pay underlies ALL tort decisions, the existance of insurance also.

It is so important that you actaully can NOT mention the existence of an insurer in Tort cases because it skews the results so badly.
And no, obviously not everyone down the chain is liable, my first response to the OP obviously showed that.

 

[EngineerJoe]

By defending a bar in this instance, you are saying that a profit making entity which makes money off of creating a known societal risk and can purchase liability insurance, should not have any incentive for minimizing that risk or be held liable for the manifestation of that risk.

I actually agree with this. Tort law and vicariously liability was covered for our PPE...

"Our courts have long recognized the concept that the employer is vicariously liable for the negligent performance of an employee. If an employee commits a tort in the course of employment, the employer will be vicariously liable for the damage caused. This concept may appear onerous as far as the employer is concerned, but it is consistent with the basic premise of tort law; its purpose is to compensate the injured party. The employer provides compensation because it is presumed that the employer is in a better financial position than the employee." - Law for Professional Engineers, 4th ed. p. 52

 

[OpenGambit]

Exactly ^

 

[fastar1]

That's ridiculous, and it makes no sense.

Tort law still has to be based on some principles otherwise anybody could be held responsible for anything regardless of their involvement, if "it's purpose is to compensate the injured party". You so much as conceded that in post #47 saying the law takes into consideration the involvement of a party before assessing tort, without a word about their ability to pay.

My outlandish scenarios also illustrate that it's not just about who holds the money. And it's also supported by the fact that people are harmed without redress every single day. If it were purely about compensation, nobody would ever be harmed without compensation.

The only sensible explanation is that tort is determined based on the principle of responsibility, which is determined based on level of involvement and ability to intercede in the course of events that led up to the incident.

 

[OpenGambit]

That's ridiculous, and it makes no sense.

Tort law still has to be based on some principles otherwise anybody could be held responsible for anything regardless of their involvement, if "it's purpose is to compensate the injured party". You so much as conceded that in post #47 saying the law takes into consideration the involvement of a party before assessing tort, without a word about their ability to pay.

My outlandish scenarios also illustrate that it's not just about who holds the money. And it's also supported by the fact that people are harmed without redress every single day. If it were purely about compensation, nobody would ever be harmed without compensation.

The only sensible explanation is that tort is determined based on the principle of responsibility, which is determined based on level of involvement and ability to intercede in the course of events that led up to the incident.

the purpose of criminal law is punishment and deterrance, that doesn't mean everyone is punished

the purpose of tort law is compensation, that doesn't mean everyone is compensated.

your outlandish scenarios were not responded because they were exactly that. outlandish.

Tort isn't just about negligence, it encompasses all civil wrongs, including, slander, libel, inducing breach of contract, Intellectual property, battery, economic loss, negligent misrepresentation, tresspass.

And the thing that brings it all together is... Compensation.

SCC says - "Although compensation may be the primary purpose of tort law, it must be noted that aggravated or exemplary damages which may sometimes be awarded are aimed at punishment and deterrence. Tort actions fulfil a role in appeasing the victim and may serve as a means of educating the public, as well as producers and manufactures, as to the dangers involved in the use of certain products or processes." Hall v. Hebert, [1993] 2 SCR 159

You will also find tons of other statements talking about the purpose of tort law being to restore the victim back to their "original position" ... ie. compensation.

If you take the time to think about employer liability, you will realize that there are lots of situation where an employer just isn't "responsible" (in the sense that they actually did something wrong) for harm caused by their employee.
but the base position is that the employer is liable.. Why? its because of ability to pay. You may not like it, but thats what it is, just becuase you dont' like something doesn't make it untrue.

 

[fastar1]

You may not like it, but thats what it is, just becuase you dont' like something doesn't make it untrue.

I understand what you're saying, and you've convinced me that the law works this way. I just think the rationale is completely backwards and absolutely ridiculous. But that's my problem to deal with.

 

[OpenGambit]

I understand what you're saying, and you've convinced me that the law works this way. I just think the rationale is completely backwards and absolutely ridiculous. But that's my problem to deal with.

Well in Canada, the lines drawn in tort cases have generally been pretty reasonable. Obviously not everyone is liable, and the first case i quoted shows that quite clearly.
I don't consider the concept of bars being held liable to the public to be be a difficult one, no one is sueing a dry cleaner for 60 million dollars for lost pants here.

I am also not suggesting that responsiblity ( ie . standard of care /duty of care) is not important. but what I am saying is that talking about tort law without also talking about ability to pay and the existance of insurance. is like talking about the cost of riding a bike without considering the cost of insurance. It is extremely integral to any analysis.

 

[EngineerJoe]

I just think the rationale is completely backwards and absolutely ridiculous. But that's my problem to deal with.

The rationale does appear to be somewhat "socialist" in the sense that it's seeking funds from a party on the basis that said party is in a better financial position, but look at it this way; the party with the financial benefit isn't necessarily going bankrupt because of this, and the innocent isn't miraculously healed of all their ailments that resulted from the negligent act.

Vicarious liability requires three parties;

1. The party financially benefiting from the defendant
2. The defendant
3. The party financially harmed by the defendant.

With the fundamental purpose of tort law being that it compensates victims of torts, it makes sense that a natural balance is achieved once the party benefiting from the defendant compensate for the loss of the party financially harmed by the defendant.

And unlike what you hear in the states, Tort isn't about suing for millions because you spilled coffee on your lap... but this gets into economic loss and how that loss must be a direct result of the defendant's negligence...

 

[RockerGuy]

So in your world the victims harmed by the drunk just gets screwed if the drunk doesn't carry insurance.

Gotcha.

Don't change your tune if you end up being that guy.

Interesting that you think that people have the "right" to drink as much as they want without being cut off by the bar, and then when they go out and hurt someone else, the victim just gets screwed.

by interesting I mean that you are the only braindead one here.

I think you're just missing my point or you're just trying to twist my point to see it to your view. Let me summarize.

What my beliefs are: I believe a drunk should carry his own weight, ie. responsible for his own actions. If he messed up, there is no way a bussiness should be responsible in any way. When he got drunk and decide to drive his car, he already broke a law with serious consequences. I don't know the laws of Public intoxication, but if he got so drunk and started smashing things, I don't see how a business should be responsible for that either.

And yes, a drunk should pay his own way out. Maybe he will wake up and not do it again. Sometimes when ppl do not suffer the consequences they never "really wake up" from their fantasy world.

Maybe if you own a business you'll change your tune.

I;m out, gonna work on my bike instead of arguing about drunks

Maybe we could reclassify bars and homes as a closed circuit course (ex: race tracks) and have waivers signed upon entry. No direct liability to the provider of the event. Risk and responsibility to fall solely on Patron using facility, and there afterwards. Ya thats the answer lol

I don't see why it shouldn't be that way.

I dunno how Rocker Guy feels but I for one would appreciate if you tried to restrain yourself on the insults. You can do better than that.

.

I haven't insulted him.

I just said "some ppl are brain dead" and he automatically think its him .
Maybe guilty conscience need no accuser???

 

[OpenGambit]

I think you're just missing my point or you're just trying to twist my point to see it to your view. Let me summarize.

What my beliefs are: I believe a drunk should carry his own weight, ie. responsible for his own actions. If he messed up, there is no way a bussiness should be responsible in any way. When he got drunk and decide to drive his car, he already broke a law with serious consequences. I don't know the laws of Public intoxication, but if he got so drunk and started smashing things, I don't see how a business should be responsible for that either.

And yes, a drunk should pay his own way out. Maybe he will wake up and not do it again. Sometimes when ppl do not suffer the consequences they never "really wake up" from their fantasy world.

Maybe if you own a business you'll change your tune.

I;m out, gonna work on my bike instead of arguing about drunks



I don't see why it shouldn't be that way.



I haven't insulted him.

I just said "some ppl are brain dead" and he automatically think its him .
Maybe guilty conscience need no accuser???

The natural consequence of your opinion is that the 3rd party gets screwed. And by the way you haven't responded at all to it. I am sure you haven't managed to reconcile those points.

Forum Sponsor