Pete
Repete
Detain him until he gets picked up? what if no one wants to come get him? The police can't detain him unless he has broken some law, so what do you do stay open until he can leave or take them home?
Strict liability is nonsense.
Should Bars Be Liable For Drunk Patrons?
- Thread starter nhboy
- Start date
Detain him until he gets picked up? what if no one wants to come get him? The police can't detain him unless he has broken some law, so what do you do stay open until he can leave or take them home?
Strict liability is nonsense.
mAlice
professional daydreamer
I think people should suffer the consequences of their actions. In this case, he did. Sadly, the penalty was not stiff enough. Eaton gets his life back in 8 yrs.
I do not think that anyone serving alcohol should be held responsible. Just because something is made available to you, does not mean you have to consume it.
Still, not the restaurant/bars responsibility, but if I had been the bartender, and the offer for a taxi had been declined, I would have made a call to the police someone who'd had too much to drink would be driving away from my establishment. But, that's just me.
NextJen
Raisin cane
What if someone already had 2 or more drinks at home before showing up at the bar? (saves you some $) How is a bartender supposed to know that the two drinks that they serve the patron puts them over the limit?
What if someone is bar-hopping? Which bar would be responsible for the person then?
What if someone is bar-hopping? Which bar would be responsible for the person then?
bcp
In My Opinion
I think the bar should hold some responsibility to the condition of their patrons when they leave.
The reason bars dont care, is because the drunker someone gets, the more they spend. If the bar cannot be held liable in any way, then it is to their advantage to have as many people as possible walk out the door trashed.
As far as the outcome of this issue in the Maryland courts,
If a gun manufacturer can be held liable for a death caused by the gun the made, then the bar owner can be held liable for the drunk he let drive.
What I think the best idea would be, would be to mandate that you have to carry special insurance to cover the expenses of drunk driving in order to go out and drink.
Without the insurance card, you can not be served in public.
Those that dont drink in public will not have to have this insurance, and the rates for the non drinking driver could end up going down since drunk driving can be taken off of the policy.
And in the case referenced, 8 years is not a long enough time served for killing a 10 year old because he decided to go out and act like an ass then drive.
The reason bars dont care, is because the drunker someone gets, the more they spend. If the bar cannot be held liable in any way, then it is to their advantage to have as many people as possible walk out the door trashed.
As far as the outcome of this issue in the Maryland courts,
If a gun manufacturer can be held liable for a death caused by the gun the made, then the bar owner can be held liable for the drunk he let drive.
What I think the best idea would be, would be to mandate that you have to carry special insurance to cover the expenses of drunk driving in order to go out and drink.
Without the insurance card, you can not be served in public.
Those that dont drink in public will not have to have this insurance, and the rates for the non drinking driver could end up going down since drunk driving can be taken off of the policy.
And in the case referenced, 8 years is not a long enough time served for killing a 10 year old because he decided to go out and act like an ass then drive.
PsyOps
Pixelated
That's different. They're just tracking your cell phone.
We should just shut down all bars. You can't smoke in them, you can't drink in them - what good are they?
Stop serving alcohol in restaurants as well. You're supposed to be there to eat, not drink.
Close up the liquor stores - they're selling poison to make you drunk and kill children.
I'm down with prohibition.
(Except for coke, heroin and meth - we should have free and unfettered access to them.)
Stop serving alcohol in restaurants as well. You're supposed to be there to eat, not drink.
Close up the liquor stores - they're selling poison to make you drunk and kill children.
I'm down with prohibition.
(Except for coke, heroin and meth - we should have free and unfettered access to them.)
bcp
In My Opinion
We should just shut down all bars. You can't smoke in them, you can't drink in them - what good are they?
Stop serving alcohol in restaurants as well. You're supposed to be there to eat, not drink.
Close up the liquor stores - they're selling poison to make you drunk and kill children.
I'm down with prohibition.
(Except for coke, heroin and meth - we should have free and unfettered access to them.)
To be honest, if you think about it, bars are fairly foolish to have.
there are laws against driving after drinking, then you have bars that you drive to in order to drink.
Very few people walk out of a bar and drive home with the ability to pass a breath test.
Maybe someone should come up with a key box at the door on the way in. You put your keys in it when you enter, it gives you a card with a barcode on it that will tell the machine what keys you placed in it. Then when you go to leave, you put the card in, and you blow into the machine. If you are over the limit, you dont get your keys back, if you are under the limit, the keys are returned.
I have an even better idea:
What if we just got rid of private transportation and everyone rode a bus? That way nobody would ever drive drunk (especially if we made it all automated and got rid of bus drivers).
It would be even better to get rid of all motor vehicle transportation. Make people ride a bike and solve two problems at once - obesity and drunk driving. I see you fatties sitting in rush hour traffic stuffing chips and snack cakes in your maws, stressing out and practically begging for a heart malfunction. You all could do with some exercise.
Of course then how would our kids get to school, since nobody wants them walking more than a few feet? Biking it is probably out of the question since a pedophile might chase them down the street with candy.
Hmmmm.... This banning stuff is tougher than I thought.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I am familiar with the case. So, how would you implement this new law?
Plaintiffs provided testimony that a 'dram' law, holding the vendor responsible, would reduce Maryland's alcohol related driving deaths of 220 per year down to...206. 14 less.
Defense says the guy could have been served by multiple employees over changing shifts. He was there for 6 hours. He could have been bought a drink or 2 or 5 by friends unbeknown to staff.
So, do you put it on the manager to await notification that a given customer 'appears' to be a danger? Is loud talk, excess laughter the barometer? Do you then insist on breathalyzer's or some other subjective measurement to determine when to tell a customer 'no more'? They offered to get the guy a cab, he refused. Does he have that right if they have this new responsibility?
Do you let passengers drink all they like and limit the designated driver? Do you check each person as they enter, before serving them, to see who is driving and who is not? Is the bar then responsible if the designated driver feels ill or otherwise incapable of driving and decides to let his drunk friend take over driving?
Is the bar then going to be responsible for behavior once the customer gets home and beats his wife? Stops and robs a gas station? Misses work the next day? Has liver damage?
Define your world, how to do this, and remain any semblance of freedom and individual responsibility?
bcp
In My Opinion
They should at least make it legal to put a bullet in a drunk drivers head after he runs into you, or kills a family member.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
The argument is that we are impaired when we drink, both our judgment and our skills. Then, the argument becomes what is 'too impaired'?
Then, the argument moves to the bar, they made money off of selling their product. So, being the only ones who benefited over this tragedy, they should bear some responsibility.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
luvmygdaughters
Well-Known Member
The reason bars dont care, is because the drunker someone gets, the more they spend.
Thats not necessarily true. I use to bartend, many years ago. The owner would not allow us to serve someone who was obviously intoxicated. We could serve them soda's, coffee, water, but no alcohol at all. He would offer to call a cab or a friend or family member for them, if they refused, he had no choice but to let them go. Most bar owners dont want intoxicated people hanging at their bar. Its not good for business. Who wants to go have a drink after work with some friends and listen to some loudmouthed drunk cursing and yelling at the top of their lungs. If we, as a society, are constantly blaming someone else for our mistakes and failures, then how will we stop making the mistakes and failures?
Here in lies the problem.
North Carolina has this law. Lets say you get someone loaded up piss drunk, and you knowingly do nothing (call the cops etc) when said individual leaves out the door to go drink and drive. Or you give someone alcohol that SHOULD HAVE BEEN cut off. The point where the individual should have been cut off is at the discretion of the bartender. If they are not cut off, or if no action is taken to prevent drinking and driving then your establishment can be held liable.
There are several issues that come up in reference to this.
A. Q: How does one know when an individual is legally intoxicated and should be cut off.
A: Cops in Virginia and other states can arrest someone for being "drunk in public." To be arrested for being DIP, you do not need to perform standard field sobriety tests on that individual. You just need to show that the person was exhibiting signs of intoxication "slurred speech, bloodshot glassy eyes, disorderly loud boisterous behavior."
Q: Bartenders aren't cops, so how would they know?
A: Bartenders are given training and should have no issue recognizing the signs of intoxication. Many drinks served in small time frame, individual yelling, screaming, demanding more alcohol, drunken behavior that one might expect.
There is case law that has traditionally gone back and forth over whether statements of an intoxicated individual can be used in court, and whether an intoxicated individual can be held responsible for their actions. Courts could also argue points over if an individual was intoxicated to the point where they should not drive, at what point would you call them an ambulance? How drunk does someone have to be to be considered "alcohol poisoning?" Many EMS providers won't let an "intoxicated" individual sign a refusal of care sheet. There is case law in Maryland that goes back and forth for example to argue whether an individual who is under the influence of phencyclidine can be held responsible for their actions while under the influence of that drug. If an intoxicated man tells you that he hasn't had anything to drink, and is lying, can the statement be brought into court?
In reference to the gun store argument, courts might argue that do gun stores not have the responsibility to ensure that they are not selling a firearm to a convicted felon? Do gun stores not have the right to refuse sale if they believe the firearm is the subject of a straw purchase? The answer is they do, and they do often do refuse sale of suspected straw purchase weapons. Business owners in Maryland have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The sad part is, instead of using common sense and policing themselves, they are in it to make the quick buck. If they see someone arrive in a vehicle, alone, and load them up on booze over a 5 hour period, turning a blind eye to criminal behavior when the person leaves and goes to drive home is this ethically right?
Im not saying that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. I also think and would hope that bartenders and staff that observe reckless behavior would do the right thing and call police. Sadly they don't want to "snitch" on their customers, I guess its bad business practice. With that being said, saving their customers life so they have a repeat customer is more important than hiding and concealing criminal behavior for another individual.
Some bars employ cops who stand at the door and often do field sobriety tests on individuals attempting to leave impaired. I disagree with this because anyone can go take 5 shots of vodka and pass a field sobriety test in the first 20 minutes because alcohol is a time delayed drug and takes time to take full effect. The results of that sobriety test may change as the alcohol is absorbed into the system. Thats the problem with this. So if the cop says your OK to drive and you just drank, he might be incorrect as there are many variable factors that go into alcohol/drug absorption such as gender, weight, tolerance, BMI, proof of alcohol, stomach contents, etc. A sobriety test or breath test may not be accurate on someone "heading out the door" of the bar, even if done by a cop.
There are alot of questions that go along with this.
I would imagine its just a matter of time before a senators son or daughter is killed by some drunk who got loaded up at some backwoods dive bar and the bartender didn't even call 911, even after knowing that the person was driving. You can bet more laws will be made and someone other than the driver will be held accountable, because some judge will rule. Alls it takes is one ruling and its on.
North Carolina has this law. Lets say you get someone loaded up piss drunk, and you knowingly do nothing (call the cops etc) when said individual leaves out the door to go drink and drive. Or you give someone alcohol that SHOULD HAVE BEEN cut off. The point where the individual should have been cut off is at the discretion of the bartender. If they are not cut off, or if no action is taken to prevent drinking and driving then your establishment can be held liable.
There are several issues that come up in reference to this.
A. Q: How does one know when an individual is legally intoxicated and should be cut off.
A: Cops in Virginia and other states can arrest someone for being "drunk in public." To be arrested for being DIP, you do not need to perform standard field sobriety tests on that individual. You just need to show that the person was exhibiting signs of intoxication "slurred speech, bloodshot glassy eyes, disorderly loud boisterous behavior."
Q: Bartenders aren't cops, so how would they know?
A: Bartenders are given training and should have no issue recognizing the signs of intoxication. Many drinks served in small time frame, individual yelling, screaming, demanding more alcohol, drunken behavior that one might expect.
There is case law that has traditionally gone back and forth over whether statements of an intoxicated individual can be used in court, and whether an intoxicated individual can be held responsible for their actions. Courts could also argue points over if an individual was intoxicated to the point where they should not drive, at what point would you call them an ambulance? How drunk does someone have to be to be considered "alcohol poisoning?" Many EMS providers won't let an "intoxicated" individual sign a refusal of care sheet. There is case law in Maryland that goes back and forth for example to argue whether an individual who is under the influence of phencyclidine can be held responsible for their actions while under the influence of that drug. If an intoxicated man tells you that he hasn't had anything to drink, and is lying, can the statement be brought into court?
In reference to the gun store argument, courts might argue that do gun stores not have the responsibility to ensure that they are not selling a firearm to a convicted felon? Do gun stores not have the right to refuse sale if they believe the firearm is the subject of a straw purchase? The answer is they do, and they do often do refuse sale of suspected straw purchase weapons. Business owners in Maryland have the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. The sad part is, instead of using common sense and policing themselves, they are in it to make the quick buck. If they see someone arrive in a vehicle, alone, and load them up on booze over a 5 hour period, turning a blind eye to criminal behavior when the person leaves and goes to drive home is this ethically right?
Im not saying that people shouldn't be held responsible for their actions. I also think and would hope that bartenders and staff that observe reckless behavior would do the right thing and call police. Sadly they don't want to "snitch" on their customers, I guess its bad business practice. With that being said, saving their customers life so they have a repeat customer is more important than hiding and concealing criminal behavior for another individual.
Some bars employ cops who stand at the door and often do field sobriety tests on individuals attempting to leave impaired. I disagree with this because anyone can go take 5 shots of vodka and pass a field sobriety test in the first 20 minutes because alcohol is a time delayed drug and takes time to take full effect. The results of that sobriety test may change as the alcohol is absorbed into the system. Thats the problem with this. So if the cop says your OK to drive and you just drank, he might be incorrect as there are many variable factors that go into alcohol/drug absorption such as gender, weight, tolerance, BMI, proof of alcohol, stomach contents, etc. A sobriety test or breath test may not be accurate on someone "heading out the door" of the bar, even if done by a cop.
There are alot of questions that go along with this.
I would imagine its just a matter of time before a senators son or daughter is killed by some drunk who got loaded up at some backwoods dive bar and the bartender didn't even call 911, even after knowing that the person was driving. You can bet more laws will be made and someone other than the driver will be held accountable, because some judge will rule. Alls it takes is one ruling and its on.
Larry Gude
Strung Out
I'm intrigued by the idea of bars confiscating car keys. If a cop does it, it's illegal seizure; if a bar does it, it just makes sense.
Could the bar patron then sue the bar for kidnapping and false imprisonment?
Could the bar patron then sue the bar for kidnapping and false imprisonment?
#1, that drunk would probably be another Senator.
#2, how is some 22 year old bartender going to tell a drunken politician or cabinet member that he's had enough and needs to sober up?
Just ban alcohol. Sure, it's been done but we're smarter now and can do it right this time.