Comments
Raevix t1_j4zn2wv wrote
Hi, I work in Ontario and took the Smart Serve Training for serving alcoholic beverages. Whether or not it's right or reasonable, based on very clearly defined Ontario law, Ovations Ontario Food Services is actually legally liable for these damages and they have almost no defense that could stand in court.
She's gonna win that lawsuit. And the people who served her might even be criminally liable for some of the resulting damage.
(No I don't like it either)
Langstarr t1_j4zr7yw wrote
For Americans -- your state may have Dram Shop laws, which are the same as this Canadian fellow has outlined. I used to bartend in NYC and it was my legal responsibility to cut people off and I could and would be held liable in an overserving situation like this.
Aldous_Hoaxley t1_j4zxjv7 wrote
That's how I learned to order Tito's instead of Dripping Springs vodka in bars. Trying to pronounce the latter after a few drinks would get me cut off immediately.
CunningLinguist222 t1_j500eyi wrote
drrpen sperngs
JonnySnowflake t1_j501jah wrote
Same idea, but I switched to Pall Malls in college because I couldn't pronounce "Marlboro" after walking through the cold to get to the gas station
LovsickPrfectaTerain t1_j502ymq wrote
I never tried. Even if you called me marbleblows they'd sell em. I always called em Marlbros and they still sold em.
MonsieurReynard t1_j522xxo wrote
The new fun is American spirits. They come in like 24 varieties distinguished by slightly different colored packs. And no one knows the proper name, everyone just says the color. So it's "American Spirit Blue" or "American Spirit yellow." But with so many there are like four shades of blue and four shades of yellow now. And around me the gas stations are mostly staffed by people whose first language is Urdu or Bengali (perfectly nice people, they just don't necessarily know every English color term) and so you get into a whole thing of "American spirit gold, no the darker yellow, no that's like mustard, the GOLD, yeah no, the next one, good now up one row, yeah those." I imagine it would be challenging if you were drunk.
LovsickPrfectaTerain t1_j54qt1m wrote
Yep. Can't advertise by flavor, no lights or ultralights anymore, especially menthols.
MonsieurReynard t1_j522akx wrote
I could see "Tito's" going wrong in amusing ways too.
Me I like Tennessee whiskey and bug spray, but it's a beast to order "Jack n Off" when I'm wasted.
rct1 t1_j527exp wrote
Filing that for the next fishing trip. Cheers
MonsieurReynard t1_j52vsok wrote
Learned it from a hunting buddy, glad it will survive
Thunderhorse74 t1_j51vvv8 wrote
This redditor does local Texas vodka...
MonsieurReynard t1_j5231wr wrote
You can buy Tito's around me in rural Massachusetts. It's been a national brand for a while now.
ETA I just checked and they now have a ten story distillery and made 3.8 million cases of Tito's last year!
DFG57 t1_j510r5t wrote
Yep. Also a former bartender here. If I served someone who was obviously drunk I could be held liable for what they did when they left the bar. But I believe there would have to be witnesses that the drunk was falling down or stumbling, slurring, etc. and I served them anyway. There was a regular customer who spent six months in jail after his sixth DUI and the night he got out he stumbled into the bar and asked for a scotch rocks. I told him I wasn't serving him because he was too drunk and he responded "No, it's OK. I quit driving." So he had his priorities all set.
Caldren57 t1_j5287ne wrote
I get it, but as a bartender at a concert where there are several bars, it's hard to see who actually gets the drink, a male companion, boyfriend, husband, whomever, buys 2 at a time, at 1 station. Next station 2 more, come back to 1 get 2 more etc... and if there are 3 or more, gimme a break. Wheeeeee.
DFG57 t1_j528uum wrote
Agreed. How the hell am I on the hook for someone who is able to pronounce “vodka rocks” then walk away? If I have to lift his head off the bar to ask if he wants another that’s a different story. If this suit collects any money I hope she never sees a penny of it.
daschowdertailz t1_j54ggip wrote
If you got an extra 23 bucks look into taking the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (olcc) alcohol permit test. Oregon has the strictest liquor laws in the US. Gotta be a card holder to do bar and gotta take the course and test every 3 years now I believe.
keith0211 t1_j51t545 wrote
Generally, though, those laws only allow people injured by the drunk person to sue the venue. In the vast majority of places in the US, the drunk person cannot get damages.
BA_calls t1_j530jyc wrote
That seems to be what’s happening. The $15M of damage is probably what she’s been sued for.
Rheum42 t1_j51kwqp wrote
I think it's ridiculous that bartenders are held liable for other people's drinking problems
Blue_Jays t1_j52u7ul wrote
That would be comparable to casinos being held liable for people losing money due to their gambling addictions and we know that ain't happening!
Keyboardists t1_j502std wrote
This is true for the majority of the US too. As much as I do understand it and promote responsible alcohol service, you can’t exactly control what someone does once cut off. There could be other issues at play here.
Small anecdote - had to cut someone off as a bartender before. He came in appearing sober, had one drink, stepped the the bathroom, and came back severely intoxicated. He had clearly taken something we didn’t sell in there. Called him a cab and he pulled off shit-faced in his car before it could arrive. Gave police his tag number and never heard back about it. Had he done something similar to this woman, I would’ve hated to be on the hook despite doing the right thing.
Austoman t1_j500zhy wrote
Yup. To expand on this.
Across Canada the law (roughly) is that any alcohol provider (personal or corporate) must ensure that anyone imbibing in alcohol that they have supplied either get home safely or the responsibility is passed onto a reliable/reasonable party. That is to say a provider must also supply a safe drive home, usually a taxi or other reasonable transportation. If a provider sends a supplied individual out of their location without a responsible means of getting them home or passing the responsibility to a sober individual then any harm to the intoxicated person or done by the intoxicated person in the responsibility of the provider.
So since the venue sent this obviously intoxicated person home without providing any reasonable transportation (thus resulting in her driving drunk) any damages caused by her after being placed into a state of intoxication by the venue is the responsibility of the venue.
Basically all the venue had to do was call her a cab and it would have been fine. Someone chose to kick her out and send her into the wild while she was obviously drunk, so yeah in Canada the damage was caused by the person (company) that gave her alcohol and then kicked her out without a reasonable way of getting home.
While some may not like it there is some logic to it. If youre going to get someone drunk then they are no longer able to make soind decisions. You placed them in that position and so it is on you to get them home (within reason).
imregrettingthis t1_j5022z3 wrote
Couldn’t you argue a cellphone And access to Uber is more than reasonable as an avenue for getting home?
Austoman t1_j503c0n wrote
You couldnt assume an intoxicated person would make the decision of using the phone or calling a taxi/uber. It is on the provider to do that, which is a 60 second process for a sober person to do.
Basically if they are intoxicated they are deemed to not be of sound mind and therefore you cannot assume that they would make a reasonable decision (such as calling a cab) to get home safely. Therefore the onus is on the provider to make that call.
imregrettingthis t1_j503js3 wrote
This makes sense in the context of the law. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question
Kelmon80 t1_j506w75 wrote
That's just insane to me. No-one "got her drunk". She ordered the drinks. Glad that this lawsuit would be loughed out of our courts.
Austoman t1_j5097w3 wrote
Yes she made the choice to buy alcohol, but the provider supplied it to her at their location. If she got drunk at home, went to the venue, was kicked out and crashed then thatd all be on her. But the venue provider her alcohol, enough for her to become intoxicated thus changing her from a person capable of making her own decisions reasonably to a person unable to reasonably make her own decisions (with regards to her safety and the safety of those around her). The moment that switch occurs her safety and those around her are the responsibility of the provider and removing her from the venue/location requires a safe/reasonable means of transportation. Its the same reason you cant just drop a drunk person off on the highway. Its unsafe for them and those around them. Its also the same line of logic for why an intoxicated person cant consent. They are unable to make soind decisions regarding their own safety. So, you cant kick someone out of location after getting them drunk only to have them drive a vehicle.
Its one of the bigger reason why bars take peoples keys when they order a drink.
TerribleIdea27 t1_j50aqn8 wrote
>Its one of the bigger reason why bars take peoples keys when they order a drink.
That's a thing in the US?!
joleme t1_j50i071 wrote
I've never seen it before in my life. I have seen bartenders snatch keys from regulars they know after the person is drunk.
TankSparkle t1_j518uag wrote
Don't think so. The poster you replied to said he was in Ontario.
___zero__cool___ t1_j50s4vj wrote
Not at all. I think the person you relied to might just be an alcoholic who always just gets their keys taken away at a bar their a regular at lol.
[deleted] t1_j51hwut wrote
[removed]
nyrB2 t1_j51599s wrote
how would they have prevented her from driving?
Actually-Yo-Momma t1_j52mzaj wrote
Obviously before serving anyone in a dark concert venue, they should give out breathalyzer tests to ensure they’re mentally fit to have another drink!!!
nyrB2 t1_j52rktr wrote
lol sounds like that's what they have to do in ontario
Abrahamlinkenssphere t1_j500cts wrote
Wow so this asshole is likely to just walk away rich as fuck for ruining a bunch of lives?
Qbr12 t1_j503y5u wrote
Unless Canadian law is vastly different from America, she's isn't going to become rich as fuck. The most she could win would be the amount of damages she suffered. That's only $15 million here because she caused $15 million in damage to others. Anything she wins is going to go straight to paying for that.
Abrahamlinkenssphere t1_j507xym wrote
Thank fuck. My love for Canada is sustained.
[deleted] t1_j50hr3v wrote
[deleted]
Caldren57 t1_j526rs6 wrote
Look, here's a big question. At such a concert venue, is there more than 1 bar in the hall, stadium, whatever? So a young lady can go to several bar set ups and get a drink? And now think with your other head and figure a pretty girl, almost drunk, at a concert, and you don't buy her a drink? Really? All she had to do was flirt, and the drinks kept coming. It was her fault, she could've called for a ride. Nope she chose to drive.
Raevix t1_j52jrs6 wrote
If a relatively sober guy purchased the drink for her and server couldn't reasonapbly know it was for the drunk girl, then yes the server is off the hook. But now the guy buying the drink is in the same potential legal jeopardy the server would be.
I'm not trying to suggest these laws are fair. They are just the laws that exist.
AmericanKamikaze t1_j52s8wp wrote
Can a bartender defend by saying “I couldn’t not tell she was drunk.”?
IMHO INALProsecutors would first have to find the particular bartender that over served her and prove that he knew she was drunk and decided to overserve her anyway.
Raevix t1_j52wr5k wrote
Nope. They can run the math of the sales and her blood alcohol during the crash and say she was definitely drunk when you sold to her and you should have known even if you didn't.
Yes, really
Edit: Yes a minimum wage employee at a grocery store is required to correctly determine if a customer is drunk based on a ten second interaction while selling one beer under penalty of jail time
[deleted] t1_j52xu2j wrote
[deleted]
Allhellforatreefort t1_j53dx6k wrote
Eh, she has to prove that they did it and not her hitting it hard before the concert or in the parking lot after getting kicked out.
I don't see this as a slam dunk.
andreasdagen t1_j4zp2dk wrote
>they kept serving her while she was drunk
She might have a case
DamnBunny t1_j4zjry7 wrote
-.- no one wants to take responsibility of their own actions. Someone else is accountable.
wisezombiekiller t1_j5kmbxs wrote
if another poster is correct (forgot their name), the food vendor is in fact legally liable for the damages under ontario law
DamnBunny t1_j5ma92i wrote
Then, you guys can't consume alcohol responsibly. Don't come to America for booze when your PM takes a BM on your lives.
ash_274 t1_j4zz0l3 wrote
This message brought to you by the Bar Association
--zaxell-- t1_j500dxo wrote
Why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed? You don't need double-talk; you need Bob Loblaw.
begforsleep t1_j53ropd wrote
Of course, the Bob Loblaw Law Blog
JMLobo83 t1_j4z9cim wrote
Typically 3rd parties can sue a drunk driver, but a drunk driver is not allowed to recover her own damages in this situation. But this happened in Florida I guess so all bets are off.
Edit: LOL Canada not Florida somehow. Same principle should apply.
Derrick_Mur t1_j4z9koc wrote
No, it happened in Ontario
JMLobo83 t1_j4z9pql wrote
See my edit. But she has a Florida state of mind.
Derrick_Mur t1_j4z9s3y wrote
Can’t disagree with you there
hannson t1_j4zm1tv wrote
She was adopted.
satansheat t1_j51hj4t wrote
A TGI Friday’s in my city was shut down because a women left drunk and died in a car wreck that night.
The bar was sued and it was found TGI Friday’s over served her and on top of that knew she was drunk and let her leave. When the lawsuit was over TGI Friday’s shut down that store and now we only have 1 TGI Friday’s, which isn’t bad news for most.
JMLobo83 t1_j51hu4g wrote
I wonder was it the drunk woman's estate who sued? Or the other people she harmed?
DamnBunny t1_j4zk1eq wrote
Well remember, Americans have to be micromanaged with seat belt laws, and Kinder Egg Warnings. Because they can't possibly handle life outside the US. They'd won't last a week. And that stupid bitch is gonna put Canada in the same boat. Everything right down the Kinder Egg will have to be liable for something that is Not the company's problem. No one's fault that they can't control themselves but their own. Blaming someone else only leads to needless laws to be made so another incident never happens again. And yes the US did Ban Kinder Eggs (the best ones) because one parent was too lazy to supervise a child and choked. Leaving us with more stupid people to survive and thus creating this nation that we know today.
FlacidHangDown t1_j4zrnsj wrote
Bro we get it…you want a kinder egg
DamnBunny t1_j4zsmkp wrote
O uO And I wish not wear my seat belt knowing well what outcomes may happen if I don't. I should be entitled to make my own decisions without them turning me into a criminal all because I refuse to keep myself safe. And where's that damn KinderEgg!
Neb_Djed t1_j4zuv9u wrote
Kinder egg = only hurting yourself with disappointment. Seatbelt? Now you are costing ME money to publicly fund your treatment for stupidity after getting in a wreck. You playing for all bills yourself, then there's no problems.
ash_274 t1_j4zyzar wrote
Even if you are paying your own bills, a no-seatbelt-driver-took-a-ballistic-path-through-the-windshield-and-into-the-grill-of-the-oncoming-truck accident will require a full freeway shutdown and hours of investigation and cost tens of thousands of people time and the local agencies’ time and money to deal with, instead of a much simpler no-fatality crash.
It’s the same argument in favor of motorcycle helmet laws. Not wanting to wear a helmet doesn’t bother me (though I think motorcycle licenses should be organ donor opt-out instead of opt-in by default) but when your scalp is shaved down to gray matter or your skull and a road sign attempt to occupy the same space, the extra effort to deal with that affects everyone else.
DamnBunny t1_j529v99 wrote
My point is we don't need more laws to protect ourselves from doing dumb shit, like not wearing helmets. It's common sense. The government can't protect everybody from harming ourselves and others during our process of being shot 90 feet into the air and still be a projectile for others to hit. The choices you make determines if you are SMART ENOUGH to continue to be on this planet without the aid of laws, regulations, and also if people were smart enough to know they are accountable of their own actions. And suing others for being too drunk is ridiculous! This can only tighten laws to micromanage the citizens better, because getting sued by a irresponsible person who survived a car crash that they started along with the chaos then after only makes people worry that there should be more regulations. Like how the US keeps regulating guns every time somebody loses their shit. It doesn't do anything. People still shooting each other.The same will go with that problem with her and her inability to take care of herself. If anything, she should be put in foster care for the mentally incompetent. Don't Drink and Drive. Common Sense; shouldn't be a law, but It has to exist because we're too dumb to think for ourselves.
EmptyKnowledge9314 t1_j516cme wrote
Boy did you hit the nail on the head! Seatbelts are for suckers. Kinder Eggs are what’s really important/s
DamnBunny t1_j522kcv wrote
It's the most dumbest thing i could think of as a ban and something simple to survive from. A piece of candy.
OfLittleToNoValue t1_j4zxavz wrote
The financial collapse of 2008 was caused by Wall Street. Trillions wiped out and millions of retirements destroyed. No one went to jail and they actually got bonuses and tax payer bailouts.
But if someone gets drunk and fucks up, the bar tender could be personally liable.
I'm so tired of this dystopian shitscape.
BillTowne t1_j518hn1 wrote
​
Most states, I thought, have laws against overserving.
These laws need to be enforced, and if she was overserved, there should be consequences for the servers.
The main problem I see is that it should be the people whose homes she destroyed that are suing.
Throw-a-Ru t1_j5282yx wrote
The people whose homes were destroyed don't need to sue the venue because their insurance is holding this woman accountable for the damages. She is suing to try to get the payments she owes to them covered by someone else.
Shade_Xaxis t1_j52y1e5 wrote
>She went to a Marilyn Manson Concert
In 2023? A Marilyn Manson Concert? really?
Hobbit1996 t1_j53y8xl wrote
The American way, sue your way out of anything.
JimAsia t1_j4z979e wrote
In many places a venue that continues to serve someone who is clearly drunk is legally liable for the drunks behavior. I don't know the law in California but this is not necessarily a frivolous lawsuit.
[deleted] t1_j4zeu0m wrote
They did stop serving her. They threw her out.
JimAsia t1_j4zfkfl wrote
It clearly was too late and perhaps they should have taken her car keys. I really don't know, wasn't there.
Fetlocks_Glistening t1_j4zgleo wrote
That would've been theft? I mean you can't go around grabbing other people's car keys off of them just because you think it's the right thing to do, we'd have nobody left on the road
darksidemags t1_j4znvo4 wrote
Actually the article says this happened in Ontario and they have pretty major liquor liability laws. Hosts of an event (bar, concert, house party, work party) where alcohol is served have a duty of care to guests *until the intoxicated person sobers up*, including not letting them get too wasted, trying to convince intoxicated them not to drive, helping them find a safe way home, and calling 911 if they do try to drive.
So, technically they couldn't literally wrestle the keys from the woman but under Ontario law there is a strong chance they will be seen to have some liability for what she did after leaving the venue.
seedanrun t1_j526xtf wrote
The way to do it would be require they turn in the car keys to continue getting drinks - then they need a sober friend to pick up their car keys.
JimAsia t1_j4zh6nh wrote
They should have asked for her car keys. If she refuses to give them up then they no longer have legal liability. If they didn't ask for her keys they may have some liability.
verdantsf t1_j52ganv wrote
I'd wager she'd sue them for theft if they had done that.
TheFirstUranium t1_j510ghd wrote
Legally you're correct, but bartenders don't exactly have the resources or legal authority to take people's keys or drive them home and put them to bed.
Dram shops laws establish liability in scenarios like this and as a rule, they're very old and haven't been updated in forever (think like prohibition). Many places they establish liability even when someone is responsibly served and later continues drinking.
I hate them. Legal liability for other people's actions should not exist.
TankSparkle t1_j5196jx wrote
the bars have insurance for this
TheFirstUranium t1_j51jypc wrote
The bartender is personally liable as well. In fact in some places, the bar owner isn't liable at all.
star86 t1_j4z95rc wrote
You think she might have a drinking problem?
Derrick_Mur t1_j4z9qnr wrote
I don’t know. I mean, who hasn’t gotten so trashed that they accidentally blew up a house? /s
EDIT - changed verb tense
star86 t1_j53wo0k wrote
Every Saturday night.
ZiegAmimura t1_j4z7chd wrote
She WHAT?
Pharya t1_j4z851d wrote
A long time ago I made a conscious decision to try to say toxic stuff like this less often, but here it feels justified: the world would've been significantly better off had she died in that crash.
plus_sticks t1_j50bthu wrote
Would also be even better if personal responsibility was still promoted in NA. The fact someone can be so completely reckless and even has a chance to get away with it legally is mind numbing.
[deleted] t1_j4z84qh wrote
[deleted]
Warsplit01 t1_j4z859r wrote
I think this would make a great movie tbh
johnsolomon t1_j4z9ozp wrote
Looks like she still hasn't sobered up
GyakuBoop t1_j507hya wrote
The fact she can legally win this case and not be held liable, makes you think they might change the laws related to this Right?..... Right?
AnUnusuallyLargeApe t1_j51xs56 wrote
She is still liable for her actions, this does not make her not be held liable and won't get her out of jail. This is to see if the venue that served the alcohol is also liable It makes the people who lost their houses possibly get back some of the money they are owed that she most likely does not have. Unless you think the type of person who gets drunk at a concert and blows up houses has 15 million laying around.
It's gonna come down to what specific actions the venue took to stop her from driving away intoxicated, if she was served while already intoxicated and what they did (or didn't do) when she left while being intoxicated. If being drunk in public is a crime than the bartender is an accomplice to each drunk that walks out of the bar.
nyrB2 t1_j517dqs wrote
whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility? "it's not MY fault i got way too drunk and then decided to drive!"
[deleted] t1_j4ze5id wrote
[deleted]
PunisherASM129 t1_j4zloh6 wrote
"tonlarty" means what?
[deleted] t1_j4zqzgm wrote
[deleted]
PunisherASM129 t1_j4zx4pu wrote
holy shit I'm stupid to not have seen that but thanks
icedxylophone t1_j51g56v wrote
-Knock, Knock!
-Who's there?
-Personal responsibility
VerimTamunSalsus t1_j51g57r wrote
I hope the jury explains that sympathy can be found between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.
Nightsounds1 t1_j51irtz wrote
Isn't it great how people are not responsible for their own actions / decisions anymore? It amazes me that people can sure for being stupid and they win.
Caldren57 t1_j525jme wrote
Question to Venue, how many bars were set up for the venue? If more than 1, then another no leg to stand on. Who's to say (she is) whether or not she was drunk before, or had alcohol in her car on the way home. And umm she was FORCED to drive home? Does Canada not have Uber or Taxi's? And yet she refuses to take responsibility for her own actions.
AlanShore60607 t1_j52opqf wrote
I will have you know that I have been drunk at least three times in my life and never blew up a house
Edit: in the grand scheme of things, this might actually be good because it will give her the means to pay for the damages that she caused; even if she wins, she’s not getting rich, she’s just making other people whole.
f4f4f4f4f4f4f4f4 t1_j52z5b2 wrote
How do they prove she was "overserved"? I might not want to egregiously overpay for drinks, so I stop at the liquor store on my way to the concert, and enter the venue with a belly full of liquor. If I order one drink while I'm still sober, the bartender is liable after I absorb all the ethanol and start wreaking havoc?
VacuousWording t1_j4zeybp wrote
The world would be a better place if she crashed and died.
Kaiju_Cat t1_j4zw179 wrote
If they kept serving her after she was already drunk then that is actually largely on them for what happened as a result. Not saying that it eliminates her responsibility entirely. But if you're drunk, you are objectively not in a state to make any kind of reasonable decision. That's kind of why there are laws everywhere that put a legal burden on an establishment not to serve people like that.
I work very briefly in the food industry and asides from washing their hands this is one of the number one things they drive into your head. Businesses that are licensed to serve alcohol take this stuff extremely seriously for good reason. The legal liability is huge.
People have kind of gotten to the point where alcohol gets treated like it's harmless. It's not. It's actually not. It's a mind-altering substance. It's fine if used responsibly! But part of the responsibility is that whomever is providing it needs to also be responsible.
TheFirstUranium t1_j50t615 wrote
Those laws were put into effect right after prohibition. They create extremely broad liability where there's often little or no control.
And God forbid someone face the consequences of their own actions.
Kaiju_Cat t1_j50ulkt wrote
People who continue to serve someone who is in no condition to make a rational judgment alcohol for the purpose of profit deserve to be held liable for their grossly negligent actions. People like you pretend like that also somehow means that the person who drank the alcohol is now completely absolved of all responsibility.
No. Everyone involved was at fault to some degree. It's up to the courts to figure out exactly where that fault lies. A lot of people go through life thinking that fault is some kind of 100% 0% fault lies. A lot of people go through life thinking that fault is some kind of 100% 0% game.
And that's an absurdly childish and uselessly simplistic way of looking at things in a situation like this.
People hear that a company might be liable for gross negligence and they like to puff up their chest and act all self-righteous and loudly declare that no one is held responsible for their own actions anymore and it's just the dumbest shit.
Stop.
happygobeepbeep t1_j5eoesw wrote
You sound like someone who's never been in a bar before. What you're suggesting basically would require a polygraph of all customers without sober company after 2 beers, maybe even one. Some people take medications such that they get drunk off a single beer. Guess the bartender is supposed to know that through omniscience on your view?
Forget a bar, I dunno if youve been off reddit and in the real world ever.
longganisafriedrice t1_j4zwt9n wrote
The explosion was just kind of a freak thing.
[deleted] t1_j50sa5e wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j511eab wrote
[removed]
AutoModerator t1_j511ego wrote
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
Rosy2020Derek t1_j51zo6h wrote
Stupid
SunChipMan t1_j52mrac wrote
I've been probably about as drunk as a person could be. This seems extreme.
Fabulous_Ad5052 t1_j53cxqi wrote
Society has made it so easy to blame others and suing for money than owning your mistakes and accepting the consequences.
Dependent_Ad_5035 t1_j5491sn wrote
I remember when this first happened. We thought it could have been a terrorist attack.
IveGotDMunchies t1_j4zdpcz wrote
Repost
Kind_Bullfrog_4073 t1_j4zvt8v wrote
Not the concert's fault. She should be suing the dynamite maker.
protocol1008 t1_j4z7cwj wrote
What the fuck?
Edit: I read the article. This woman is nuts. She went to a Marilyn Manson Concert, got drunk and apparently got kicked out of the concert. She then drove and crashed into a house which caused an explosion that injured seven people and destroyed FOUR houses. She pled guilty and got sentenced to three years but she's suing Ovations Ontario Food Services because they kept serving her while she was drunk and they didn't stop her from driving drunk when she got kicked out so her and her dad figured they should be liable too. Absolute nuts.