You must log in or register to comment.

tardcore101 t1_j5dqqot wrote

I guess if you’re on the hook for a $15 million dollar damage bill, you may as well sue everyone in sight.


corsicanguppy t1_j5e3xru wrote

Maybe they can change the venue for the suit to be down in America. That kind of responsibility-ducking and carpet-suing is a little embarrassing for us.


AUniquePerspective t1_j5ec47a wrote

  1. Over-serving alcohol to a guest is probably more serious in Canada than in the United States of America.

  2. Of course this happened in President's Choice Brand® London.


StreetofChimes t1_j5el6m5 wrote

In the US, the woman would have a case. I used to tend bar. It is the bartender's responsibility to cut people off if they are getting drunk.

It is actually pretty scary. I once had a patron climb over the bar and take a drink. When I took it back (because that is way illegal), I was fired because the guy was super rich. I know a bartender who cut someone off. That person came back at closing and shot the bartender twice. Bartender survived, thankfully.


afunyun t1_j5ey04v wrote

Read the article, she's not suing because they over-served her. She's suing because they STOPPED serving her and kicked her out of the venue, and she claims they should've taken "steps to ensure she would not drive home."

Basically saying by cutting her off and kicking her out it's somehow their fault because they should've known she was an idiot who would then drive home... trying to extend their liability to actions she took AFTER they removed her from their premises as if they owed her a personal babysitter to accompany her and make sure she didn't drive.


HouseOfSteak t1_j5g3s60 wrote

Given the jurisdiction.....she'd very well have a case.

SmartServe training in Ontario teaches you that you're liable for a customer's safety right up until they're sober. Even if you call a cab, get them home, and they trip over a their own porch and smack their head against the doorstep.

It's kinda over-the-top, but them's really the rules.


It doesn't excuse criminal behaviour or fines related to such, of course. But there are fines for the establishment, and they do suck.


mjtwelve t1_j5grsjj wrote

Smart serve training and what a civil suit would actually find are not necessarily the same thing.


HouseOfSteak t1_j5gsrvm wrote

For sure.

A lack of proper evidence can cause problems for civil suits, even if that's what actually happened.


afunyun t1_j5g4aa9 wrote

That's crazy. I'm sure she'd be suing for some sort of false imprisonment if they stopped serving her and then detained her on the premises to make sure she didn't hurt anyone after leaving. Seems like a lose-lose for the venue.


HouseOfSteak t1_j5g6h7p wrote

Ideally, the venue should not allow you to become intoxicated at all and should - lightly and politely - cut you off or slow you down the moment they get an idea that you're starting to get tipsy.

The venue and server has already made a mistake if the customer is not sober, everything after that is effectively damage control via persuasion and a line with the police (remember, public intoxication is illegal) before they can do something stupid.


It's a definitely a difficult situation to manage.


ghengiscostanza t1_j5gp668 wrote

> she's not suing because they over-served her. She's suing because they STOPPED serving her

You’re kinda deliberately framing that wrong with this quoted part and I feel like you know that. Over-serving is central to it, they had already over-served her.

They invited a guest to drive to their venue and park in their parking, then sold her their alcohol until she was out of her mind, then when she was peak hammered they said ok get out of here right now!

People get mad about this because they think “it’s her fault what about personal responsibility” but think about it from society/the people in the damaged neighborhood’s point of view. Sure that individual idiot deserves blame and punishment and liability but what about this big corporate entity undeniably enabling and arguably encouraging idiots to do this, they surely should answer at least in part for bringing this shit to the neighborhood.


orswich t1_j5exxea wrote

Ontario smart serve puts ALL the liability on the server and the establishment.

According to legislation, you as a server are responsible for a patron "until they are sober".. so you can cut them off and stop serving, then take thier keys away and put them in a cab home. But if they get home and decide to get in thier husbands car and crash, the server is gonna get charged.

No personal responsibility at all..

So if you are a guy and you get grabby while drunk, you are on the hook for sexual assault (as you should be) and bear full responsibility. But somehow if you are drunk and decide to drive, you were "too drunk to know better"..

I don't get why the law is different in these scenarios. Maybe too many powerful people drive drunk and don't want to be held accountable?


cheezemeister_x t1_j5f3n9e wrote

This isn't really true. Establishments have to take all reasonable steps. They don't have total liability.


orswich t1_j5f4wnk wrote

Wish that was so..

Had a local restaurant cut a guy off before he got too drunk. Management made sure he didn't go to his suv and called him a cab.. he refused and walked off the property, only to return later, smoke a joint in his vehicle and then he crashed into a liquor store and died.

To me they tried reasonably to stop him. But the law saw it differently and fined server 10k and establishment around 30k.

It's entirely why even though I am smart serve certified, I won't tend a bar or serve drinks...fuuuuck that


sllewgh t1_j5fmjvs wrote

That's too stupid to be believable without proof.


BMXTKD t1_j5fqtcn wrote

Why? Because you serve alcohol for a living?


sllewgh t1_j5frgca wrote

I used to, but no, that's not the main reason.


FlockFlysAtMidnite t1_j5hv8dh wrote

Because if I told you I was the queen of England, you wouldn't believe me. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to lie over the internet. It's also possible that they entirely misinterpreted a story that did really happen.

Thus, asking for proof.


BMXTKD t1_j5hvsig wrote

No, I'm saying this because the contrary seems to be unbelievable. I serve alcohol for a living, and one of the things they drill into our head, is if you over serve someone, you are responsible for everything they do after they leave your venue.

I'm ServSafe certified, and my church is looking into getting me to become an instructor for servsafe,

Nice try though.


FlockFlysAtMidnite t1_j5hw6y5 wrote

Yes, you're responsible - to a reasonable degree. The story seems to imply that you are responsible for them without limit, even if they continue to become even more intoxicated elsewhere.


AUniquePerspective t1_j5fd7yf wrote

In fact, we join this story already in progress with the individual already having pleaded guilty and taking responsibility for everything but the civil liabilities.


CareerMicDrop t1_j5fvq2y wrote

People can show up drunk or smuggle in a flask. I think people should take responsibility for themselves.


1800TurdFerguson t1_j5g5qjq wrote

The lead singer of Ontario-based band Single Mothers called London the armpit of the province.


StreetofChimes t1_j5ekpl0 wrote

What is carpet suing?


Astroglaid92 t1_j5f8s0z wrote

I imagine like carpet bombing? Just cover every square inch (or mm) of the ground beneath you in lawsuits.


24-Hour-Hate t1_j5hxi0s wrote

They buried the actual relevant legal detail at the bottom of the article. There is some basis for the lawsuit because she’s saying she was over-served and it is illegal to over-serve people in Canada. Over-serving has caused people to be seriously injured or killed in the past and businesses have been held responsible depending on the circumstances. There is actually a duty of care not to let people drink too much and to, within reason, ensure that they get home safely. Here’s an article that talks a bit about it and mentions some cases where businesses have been found liable in the past:

Whether or not she actually was over-served and/or the venue acted improperly when they kicked her out…stay tuned for the court case, I guess. Who knows if she’s telling the truth or just hoping to push the liability onto the company which has bigger pockets. Even if she is being honest, depending on the circumstances the company may or may not be liable. These things are always very fact based as the article mentions.


DontMakeMeCount t1_j5gqnv1 wrote

Is it a subrogation thing by any chance? Insurers usually reserve a contractual right to sue in your name to recover payments they make on your policy. Often, when you see a story about someone suing a family member it’s the insurer filing the suit. Just wondering if there are insurance companies out there suing bartenders for their customers’ drunk driving.


PhantomTroupe-2 t1_j5d3va7 wrote

Most flattering picture of Marilyn Manson within the past 10 years be like


alphagusta t1_j5ehz7t wrote

Ronald Mcdonalds "IT'S NOT A PHASE MOM" phase at 60 years old


end_of_rainbow OP t1_j5droz6 wrote

Plot twist:

Daddy and daughter additionally sue Manson, claiming his music inspired her to go on a bender and drive into the house.


WattebauschXC t1_j5e99sv wrote

Wait, for real?

The audacity to always look for something/someone other to blame just baffles me. Just for that she should go to prison. She IS a danger to society that way.


demon_ix t1_j5em77y wrote

She's probably liable for the damage if she doesn't blame someone else for it. It's possible whatever insurance she has wants a deeper pocket to settle with.


GMN123 t1_j5e3dc1 wrote

Must've been a fucking nice house to do 15m damage


22wwc t1_j5fkch3 wrote

She blew up a house, and several surrounding houses had to be demolished. She practically took out the whole street. It's a miracle nobody was killed.


Moodlemop t1_j5dx6jz wrote

Gawd I hope not. This is a perfectly named sub.


UnavailableRedux t1_j5e1y4u wrote

She broke a gas line with her car and it exploded 4 suburban houses. Lmao her standing in front of the house she drove into, “huh doesn’t look so bad.” massive explosion rips through neighborhood


bhind45 t1_j5eivf2 wrote

It was probably like the end of Season 4 of Stranger Things


tucci007 t1_j5eoc0i wrote

how did she not get roasted in the blast and fire?


cheezemeister_x t1_j5f3uj1 wrote

Duh. Got out of the car before the explosion? It would take a while for enough gas to build up to destroy 4 houses.


[deleted] t1_j5d5kpj wrote



Mysticpoisen t1_j5dvmlq wrote

I was just talking about this today to a friend of mine. I'm a pretty well traveled dude, I've lived in some of the most infamously dangerous cities in America. I've done a bit of adrenaline junkie sports.

I have never felt more unsafe, or feared more for my life than when driving on Wisconsin roads at night.


bountygiver t1_j5frdap wrote

And statistically you are correct, cars killed more than any of those crimes do.


DrKronin t1_j5e0wjx wrote

Racing sim work really opened my eyes to this. One drink, and I'm a mile off my best, and I'd still be legal to drive.


Schemen123 t1_j5e2p07 wrote

Yep ... One beer basically kills your reaction speed.

We found that out when you kill count in UT dropped significantly after a single beer.

And we were very well 'trained' in those days


Astroglaid92 t1_j5f9ly3 wrote

It’s not a valid excuse, but the vast majority of cities and towns in the US were designed with the intention that most transportation would happen via private vehicles. Public transportation is neglected, and accommodations for pedestrian access are poor or non-existent. It’s so bad that apparently the fatality rate for walking home drunk is worse than for driving home drunk.


22wwc t1_j5flf3n wrote

There are buses here in other-London (or whatever you're calling it.) There are also cabs and Uber. She was belligerent when she left, got in a car and drove the wrong way down a one-way street for several blocks before plowing into a house at the end of a t-intersection.

I understand the desire to sue everyone in sight. Her insurance company is probably not going to pay, and there are definitely lawsuits against her. Tough shit for her and her dad though. This one's gonna hurt.


Sure_Trash_ t1_j5el8zh wrote

After one drink, I wouldn't question shit because you can barely feel it. This chick had way, way more than a single drink. If I'm going out, I have 2-3 ciders max depending on the size that's served and how many hours I'm out and about. The idea that you can't have any at all and still drive seems like it's coming from people that don't drink at all and don't know how it affects people.


Oggel t1_j5es7m2 wrote

You can disagree with the clinical studies done on the subject all you want, I'm sure your intuition is better than the scientific consensus.


awesomesauce1030 t1_j5eygf5 wrote

Do you have links to the studies that show that?


Oggel t1_j5f4vwf wrote

I just googled "is it safe to drive after one beer", you can too!


[deleted] t1_j5dzwsu wrote

No joke my coworker was just on the phone a couple hours ago talking to her bf who is drunk and driving. It happens a lot sadly.


jaggington t1_j5e9w4a wrote

I’ve always found it bizarre how American TV shows and films normalize drink driving. People meeting in a bar for a drink or several to move the plot forward, then driving somewhere completely unimpaired. It’s worse than the cliche of the driver turning to talk to the passenger and not looking at the road.


5DsOfDodgeball t1_j5eb6hd wrote

Same here in Sweden. We have very tough drinking and driving laws. Some of the strictest in Europe.


Oggel t1_j5escbo wrote

And I fucking Love it.

It's really very simple, if you want to drive you don't drink. I wouldn't have it any other way.


awesomesauce1030 t1_j5f1ylp wrote

Unfortunately a lot of places in the US aren't really walkable, especially drunk. You could sleep in your car but that can also lead to a DUI if a cop sees you.


AssassiN_DUDE t1_j5e9uoz wrote

There is a simple solution to that though. If you had more than one drink, just don't drive. Sleep in your car or whatever. In Germany you can actually drink 2 beers and still drive.


lawnerdcanada t1_j5ejog6 wrote

In Canada, and I imagine many other places as well, being in care and control of a motor vehicle while sufficiently impaired is also an offence. People can and have been convicted of the offence for sleeping in their car while intoxicated.


AssassiN_DUDE t1_j5gztdo wrote

Really? I think that sounds kinda dumb. why would you punish someone for not driving while intoxicated? Here it only counts if the key is in the ignition.


bro_salad t1_j5emfz5 wrote

That’s not a solution at all. Because other people will still have a few drinks and drive on the roads with you.


Oggel t1_j5esiu7 wrote

I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across, are you saying it's ok that you drive drunk because other people do it?


bro_salad t1_j5ev1wo wrote

No! The guy I responded to is saying that if you don’t like relaxed drunk driving laws, just don’t drive when you drink. But the problem is the law, and how it affects the behavior of literally every other person on the road.


Sworn_to_Ganondorf t1_j5haxw8 wrote

Made me crack up when I saw drive through liquor stores in arkanasas when I passed through. Then learned same day that they have some of the highest drunk driving numbers.

What a shithole.


stdoubtloud t1_j5d7pqy wrote

Funny thing, if the bar had continued to serve her and then she drove home, it is almost possible that they'd have a case. As it is, they cut her off and acted (semi) responsibly. If this case doesn't get immediately dismissed it'll spell some tough times ahead for the US hospitality industry


kevinds t1_j5dcp21 wrote

They didn't exactly cut her off.. She was kicked out of the building by security.

>Funny thing, if the bar had continued to serve her and then she drove home, it is almost possible that they'd have a case.

I don't see the difference..

They stopped serving her (same as a bar closing), then she drove home.


BlueberryPiano t1_j5ds1d3 wrote

Not sure about elsewhere, but in Ontario at least it's illegal to serve someone who's drunk. It's a weird paradox, but those who serve alcohol are legally required to stop serving them.

The bar cutting her off and kicking her out is different from the bar simply closing for the night, as the bar stopping service to specifically her is respecting this law.


raichiha t1_j5dxmha wrote

Even down here in America its a risky business, one of my local bars had their liquor license revoked entirely due to over serving, after not one but two occasions of drunk patrons leaving their bar crashed their cars and died. Theres definitely a degree of responsibility


corsicanguppy t1_j5e46kb wrote

>Theres definitely a degree of responsibility

... in America.

Hey, fun thought. How about adults take responsibility for themselves? No one forced her into her car. Cabs are a thing.

I don't know if she has a license any longer, but I sure hope she retires before she gets it back.


Overbaron t1_j5eh3ev wrote

Yeah, if I buy a case of beer, drink it all, drive around with my bike and take out my hammer and smash car windows with it, are the supermarket, bike store and hardware store responsible?


Loko8765 t1_j5ec857 wrote

Maybe she has a license, but finding an insurance company will not be easy!


JustNotMe_ t1_j5e9fxx wrote

What about guns? Does have the seller or manufacturer any responsibility? So why the bar has?


bigsoftee84 t1_j5ek5ss wrote

Try reading this and ask yourself if it makes sense to a person reading it in English.


JustNotMe_ t1_j5gbhhm wrote

I think I misplaced "have". But why the down votes? :/


bigsoftee84 t1_j5gguz2 wrote

Read it aloud. It doesn't make sense as written. It's also being downvoted because it's an unrelated issue. Most arguments for manufacturer responsibility that I've seen revolve around advertising and creating a certain image.


Gobaxnova t1_j5e3pd9 wrote

I don’t get it. They’re adults and know their limits and not to drive drunk. The bar shouldn’t bare responsibility for that


waltsnider1 t1_j5ecfo5 wrote



Asatas t1_j5ep510 wrote

There, there. Their they're there was their they're and not your they're.


raichiha t1_j5f0e58 wrote

Thank you for that meaningful contribution to the conversation.


waltsnider1 t1_j5f7uiy wrote

I'm trying to teach you the correct spelling. I feel that that is meaningful. It's only going to help you grow in the future.


raichiha t1_j5f87bo wrote

Its not that i misspelled, i used the wrong form because i wasn’t really putting much thought into it. I’m aware of the different forms of there, they’re, & their, which one is possessive which one is a contraction, etc. its just not that serious here.

Again, you contributed nothing but being a douche.


waltsnider1 t1_j5f8fg9 wrote

Who's resorting to calling names?
And I would argue that it matters everywhere. Just because you treat this as someplace that's casual doesn't mean everyone else does. Not only are you showing your level of intelligence, but you are also showing your level of empathy toward those who are trying to help you.


raichiha t1_j5fa1l4 wrote

I am, and we both know your not here to “help me” with anything. Go away


waltsnider1 t1_j5g92mi wrote

And yes, I was trying. It's clear you prefer a life of ignorance.


raichiha t1_j5gp4eq wrote

Yup, and theres a difference between ignorance, which means not knowing, and simply not giving a shit. Life is much easier when you don’t care about small trivial things like punctuation on a reddit forum, of all things lol


Omegalazarus t1_j5dhflt wrote

The differences in one case the bar would keep serving her and so be partially responsible for what she might do if she's really drunk because they presumably in that scenario served her after they noticed she was drunk.


beefcake_sweepstake t1_j5ej6hp wrote

Yep, if she can prove they served her when she was already drunk she'll win this easy.


CannedApples13 t1_j5e4192 wrote

Why is she not suing the car manufacturer as well for not selling cars with a breathalyzer for engine ignition requirement?


dotnetdotcom t1_j5e1ovf wrote

So Marilyn Manson actually has nothing to do with her case. Thanks headline writer. Chatbot would have done better.


Thesujman t1_j5djcr7 wrote

Take responsibility of your own stupidity


Eirikur_da_Czech t1_j5d4zrq wrote

No personal responsibility allowed.


3pbc t1_j5dbbvz wrote

It's always someone else's fault


kevinds t1_j5dcsxp wrote

She did plead guilty, so that sounded like personal responsiblity.


Eirikur_da_Czech t1_j5ddtd0 wrote

That’s just saying you did in fact perform the actions it isn’t taking responsibility for them.


kevinds t1_j5ddxhc wrote

How so?

The last article that was posted, sounded like she was still in jail for it.


Eirikur_da_Czech t1_j5dmidj wrote

paying for your actions isn't the same as taking responsibility for them. You can't take responsibility for your actions and also accuse someone else of causing you to make those actions. They are mutually incompatible.


kevinds t1_j5ef3pu wrote

Why not?

I did something but maybe you should have some of responsiblity too.


EightandaHalf-Tails t1_j5d46h1 wrote

I don't know about Canada, but some U.S. states have laws that say it's illegal for a bartender to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated, and if they do keep serving them they can be held civilly liable for any accident that customer later causes. So, they may have a case.


RedRedditor84 t1_j5d5mqs wrote

She's suing them for kicking her out. Says they should have known she'd drive home.


Daratirek t1_j5dbghi wrote

Ya because ride share and taxis aren't a thing. Or cell phones asking for a ride. It's not the venues responsibility to monitor how people come and go.


hetfield151 t1_j5e7lbw wrote

So bars need cells now? Every one above 3 drinks has to stay in a cell until they are sober?


gotacogo t1_j5d5gde wrote

Read the article. The venue cut her off and kicked her out.

This is the stated reason for the lawsuit.

>According to the CBC, Leis and her father are accusing Ovations Ontario Food Services of having no regard for her "intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired."


jfcmfer t1_j5d9eyi wrote

If that's what happened, she'll probably get a settlement cause I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this. I do wonder though, was she all alone when they booted her?


Maatix t1_j5dgtsi wrote

>I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this.

There's no chance they settle, because there's no chance they lose.

The bar doesn't have a responsibility to make sure you have a safe way home. Legally speaking, you're required to know your way home before getting blackout wasted, so the bar CAN'T reliably serve anyone if they have to confirm you have a safe way home first. Anyone in that situation could just lie and leave MASSIVE legal repercussions with the bar.

Theoretical question: If the bar didn't kick her out, how would she have gotten home? Was she just not planning to leave all night? No obviously not - She had plans to drive. If she apparently had no other way home, she wasn't going to suddenly become LESS wasted by drinking more. Theoretically speaking, they could have kept her in the bar, but that makes her a nuisance to other customers, especially if she's just going to complain about wanting to drink and try to leave when she can't get more drinks. They can't legally detain her.

Not a single part of her claim places the onus of the explosion on the bar. The bar acted responsibly and stopped her from drinking when she appeared too drunk. They have no obligation to safely see her home in addition to stopping her from drinking, they can't say "No you're not going anywhere, you're too drunk," because they don't have the right to detain anyone - And no, she absolutely did not have to drive home, she could have called a friend, a family member, a cab, an uber - There are many options in this day and age that you're expected to consider BEFORE drinking, which she clearly did not.

SHE acted irresponsibly by having no way home after drinking heavily. DUI falls on the driver, not on the person who served the driver.


jfcmfer t1_j5dmcie wrote

That's a great explanation on why I'm wrong. Thanks, I hadn't thought of those angles.


Maatix t1_j5dnknu wrote

Now that you've linked it, do you want to point to any part of it that is against my claim?

If you're suggesting they didn't offer her subsidized taxi's, or didn't recommend taxi usage, that's going to come down to a he-said-she-said situation. She will obviously claim they didn't offer - They will obviously claim they did offer. Without proof of guilt, the bar will not be held responsible. We don't know if it was or wasn't offered.

If you're suggesting they didn't "inform guests that intoxicated persons will be put into taxi's," again, that's going to be a he-said-she-said. Obviously, she's going to say they didn't inform her a taxi was an option. Obviously, they're going to say they did offer a taxi. Again, without proof of guilt, the bar cannot be legally held responsible.

They can't force her to take options they offer, and at no point is the bar required to ensure a leaving guest takes a specific mode of transportation. Once again, they cannot be held legally responsible for her drunken decision to get in her car and drive when she knows she shouldn't. She still had the option to call for another ride, if she really didn't want to utilize their services offered. (Which we can't KNOW were offered, but seem very likely to have been offered in my opinion.)

Lastly, her two claims are opposite one another. She claims they shouldn't have let her leave because she appeared too drunk and must have been ignorant of that fact AND the fact that she was driving home - But also, claims they continued to serve her despite looking too drunk. Let's remind everyone here, she was kicked out because they stopped serving her because she appeared too drunk, and she caused a scene over it. She only got kicked out in the first place because the bar was very well aware of how drunk she was and stopped serving her because of it.

Everything she's claimed is dubious at best, and ultimately comes down to presuming the bar did EVERYTHING wrong with no evidence, and not the drunk person who got behind the wheel of a vehicle knowing they'd just gotten kicked out of a bar for being too drunk.


Raevix t1_j5dom9v wrote

Nope, I don't want to point anything out.

I just saw a lot of people talking about what will or won't happen in this thread and what is or isn't legal and not a single person citing or quoting sources so I thought I'd dump those links there so people can use them if they felt like it or just read them and form their own conclusions. I just replied to you specifically because I assume this is the thread that's going to get the most attention.


Maatix t1_j5dp5af wrote

Got it, my bad. Hard to read intent on the ninternets.


Fast_Bodybuilder_496 t1_j5dp54c wrote

I know the laws exist, but I never could get behind the idea that the bartender is somehow responsible for the patrons drunken actions


hetfield151 t1_j5e7nug wrote

Yeah its so stupid. If you cant handle alcohol, you mustnt be drinking at all.


Sure_Trash_ t1_j5elrvo wrote

I get it to an extent. If someone is slurring and sloppy drunk, serving them more alcohol is irresponsible. You don't know what they're going to do but you do know their decision making is thoroughly impaired so cutting them off makes sense. Some people act almost perfectly normal even when drunk though so it's not like they can be responsible for everyone they serve.


Fast_Bodybuilder_496 t1_j5fa85h wrote

Your last sentence is the part that gets me the most- you don't have to be sloppy and slurring drunk to be dangerous behind the wheel of a car. Frankly, if legislators want to prosecute bartenders for over serving patrons and hold them accountable for whatever the patrons go on to do in their drunken state, they should just ban alcohol outright. I can't think of any other scenario in which we hold someone legally accountable for another adult's consensual actions outside of committing a crime.


skeletaldecay t1_j5ddo0k wrote

Also intentional actions like suicide and murder. They can go after the bartender/server and restaurant.


gimmeecoffee420 t1_j5e1fac wrote

3rd Party Liability laws are no joke. I was a bartender in Washington State for years and I never had the misfortune of dealing with that shit as I never had a problem cutting motherfuckers off, but even being a responsible bartender isnt always gonna protect you 100% of the time.


hartschale666 t1_j5enapz wrote

She ordered the drinks. She turned the key. She has to face the consequences.

A waiter or a catering company aren't babysitters.


Ginggingdingding t1_j5fvl9s wrote

I agree. I worked a late nite/after hours type bar. Every single person that came through the door was drunk already. But, it was "my fault" if they left that way. So confusing. People need to practice self control. Seems easy!


thatweirdguyted t1_j5ksdqb wrote

A business has a responsibility to the public. If your factory has a chemical leak and destroys the houses around it, it has to pay to rebuild them.

If your business has the capacity to produce drunk drivers who can mow down houses, you have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent it. If a person doesn't seem like they can hack another drink, you aren't supposed to give them one. Full stop.

That said, a person does have personal responsibility as well. If they choose to get drunk, and choose to drink until they can't have good judgement, they're still choosing to put themselves in that spot.


westborneastbred t1_j5et5zt wrote

There’s a lot of blame being thrown at the bar but end of the day she kept drinking, she drove, she destroyed 4 homes, and she stood there. Sounds like a clear case of “she won’t take responsibility”. So she’s blaming everyone else but serving her time. Only person I blame is them. She prob regularly gets drunk and does something. There’s prob a history of drunken outburst


TheHighWarlord t1_j5g2qns wrote

I don't know about Canada, but I believe in some states in the U.S. there are laws that force bars to cut you off if they observe you've been drinking too much.


westborneastbred t1_j5g417y wrote

I understand that. But taking the responsibility of the act and placing it on the bar as if this person didn’t have a responsibility knowing they were drinking to decide to not drive, to pre plan a ride home, or to think. To say they could drink themselves into a stupor, destroy ppls home but then place the responsibility of this individuals action on the bar that is crazy. Regardless this person made the choice to go out, to plan to “turn up”, knowingly continued to drink, drank to the point of being removed, then to get in a vehicle, destroy property, and then watch these homes burn, and as a spit in the face say it’s not their fault it’s the bar cause they let them drink? That sounds absurd. So this woman gets no responsibility of hours prior knowing she was gonna to be drinking heavy? Naw talking about the bar as if she doesn’t have responsibility doesn’t sit right with me. There are numerous point that she could have decided not to drive and this could have been adverted. Naw she can go to prison


TheHighWarlord t1_j5g65kj wrote

>To say they could drink themselves into a stupor, destroy ppls home but then place the responsibility of this individuals action on the bar that is crazy.

Well, the law talks about partial responsibility, not complete liability. So she still gets held accountable for the criminal side of things and part of the civil side.

>So this woman gets no responsibility of hours prior knowing she was gonna to be drinking heavy?

No one is saying the woman gets away free. I'm only saying that some states in the U.S. would also hold the bar accountable for its role in the accidents and they should be. The same if a business sold products that poisoned its customers.


westborneastbred t1_j5gnuph wrote

I wasn’t stating you. I was speaking of many are focusing on the bars responsibility in this, which we can debate, the law will handle that. The debate for me is she is suing to shuck responsibility in her part and that’s my point. She is suing to give someone else the blame instead of her, which was the active participant. The law will take care of that bar. But her suing is her saying she think that she has no fault in this. And that is the absurd part for me. I’m not debating the law. I’m debating her audacity for a law suit to say that the bar is the reason she drove their and did this so they should pay. The bar may have the legal responsibility to stop serving her. But she was 100 percent at fault for the 12 million in damage she did


TheHighWarlord t1_j5iby19 wrote

> The bar may have the legal responsibility to stop serving her. But she was 100 percent at fault for the 12 million in damage she did

If the bar has a legal responsibility, then she can't be 100% at fault. Those are two contradictory statements is what I'm telling you.

Also, anyone can file a lawsuit over anything. Even though it's unlikely a jury or judge will find the bar responsible for all of the damages, there is nothing wrong with aiming high and landing somewhere in the middle.


westborneastbred t1_j5go1rx wrote

I’m sure the bar will get there’s. Cause bars have to follow laws and most countries and states and places are strict on alcohol related offenses. But this lady should not be able to shuck what she did to the bar. Not in this suit


McMacAttack35 t1_j5g5tkt wrote

No one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore.


Chard069 t1_j5dniqq wrote

I haven't spent much time in Canadian jails (not lately, anyway) and I'm not familiar with applicable Canadian laws -- but in what jurisdiction is hospitality staff responsible for transporting an evicted customer off-site, to their home or wherever?


el_pollo_diablo666 t1_j5elwhz wrote

how to put blame on others when you have no one to blame but YOURSELF


goodiebandit t1_j5du9sg wrote

Ya had me at Marilyn Manson !!


olivegardengambler t1_j5g7smm wrote

> "intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired."

Jfc they should fire the lawyer that submitted this, if they even have one.


thatweirdguyted t1_j5krod9 wrote

This happened just down the road from me. The fire was visible from a looooong way off. She drove the wrong way on a one way street for several blocks, blew through lights, and then ultimately plowed into a house at full speed. Everyone has to evacuate their pets and kids and so on, the house exploded, the neighbouring properties had to be demolished.

While the venue is responsible for kicking her out when she was too inebriated to be at the concert, they're gonna have to prove they called her a cab or the cops or something. Just booting her to the street and washing their hands of it will leave them very liable here.


[deleted] t1_j5d8kvh wrote



AutoModerator t1_j5d8kye 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.


TankSparkle t1_j5elxps wrote

and she's going to win

see Ontario law

but unfortunately see has $15 million worth of creditors


happyends t1_j5eu1di wrote

In John Belushi's voice. "It's not my fault!"


opiewhiskas t1_j5fco0l wrote

The Marilyn Manson part seems irrelevant other than to grab your attention


adeadfreelancer t1_j5h544i wrote

Damn the one time Manson wasn't responsible for a crime involving an intoxicated woman


Dmackman1969 t1_j5ghi3c wrote

Bar owner, she will win that case, the establishment that over served her AND kicked her out of the establishment will lose this case, t liquor license and their business.

Laws are very clear if you over serve the business has a responsibility to ensure she does not drive. The bartender will also be liable as well.

Personal responsibility does not come into play with liquor laws.


beefcake_sweepstake t1_j5ej357 wrote

If the staff at the venue served her alcohol when she was already drunk then she'll win this case easy.


PoppyCoLink987 t1_j5eknv9 wrote

She was cut off and kicked out of the bar for being intoxicated, disorderly.

Read the article.


deechbag t1_j5efshr wrote

If they overserved her then yes they should be held liable. That's part of being able to sell alcohol. You must cut someone off if they had too much and must be able to recognize when a person needs to be cut off.


bigsoftee84 t1_j5ejz81 wrote

Maybe there's an article attached to the headline that'll clear it up a bit for you.


deechbag t1_j5erwd3 wrote

I did, and they still can be found liable, I don't know how Canadian alcohol laws. Where I live, a bar or anyone that supplied an visable intoxicated individial can be held responsible for an accident should that drunk person cause/be in one. I don't think it happens often tho.


bigsoftee84 t1_j5ezhz2 wrote

Except they stopped serving, and the person got tossed.


deechbag t1_j5f7tsq wrote

Doesn't matter if they stopped and kicked her out, if they served her while visable intoxicated they could be held responsible. Again that is in my state and Pennsylvania is kinda wacky when it comes to alcohol. If you wanna look it up it's PA's Dram Shop Law. Like I said in my last post, don't know the laws where this took place so this or something might not apply here.


bigsoftee84 t1_j5fb1wy wrote

All the server has to say is that they didn't look visibly intoxicated. It seems that you assume the person was visibly intoxicated, I'm not seeing that in the article. So, again, I'm having a hard time finding how the liability is on anyone other than the driver.


deechbag t1_j5ffetb wrote

If she wasn't visably intoxicated, then why did they kick her out and cut her off? I agree with you, it'll be hard for her to prove they knowingly served her while intoxicated but by law, or at least in order to have a liquor license, staff must be trained to be able to spot someone intoxicated. I'm arguing just what the laws near me say, not what anyone thinks or what actually happens. Don't think I've ever heard of a bar or person being sued for this but they could be and I do agree with it. If you're serving alcohol, some of the responsibility lies with you in keeping people safe.


bigsoftee84 t1_j5ffkpn wrote

You're really trying to bend over backwards to put blame on others for her actions. If she became intoxicated after being served, what were they supposed to do, keep serving her?


deechbag t1_j5fifqi wrote

You're ignoring what the law states to say how you feel about the situation. If they're serving her responsibility and how the law states they should be, she wouldn't be getting drunk, at least not on their alcohol. I get that's not what actually happens irl and a bar that did that would be closed within a month or two but they're all leaving themselves open to some leagl liability should someone really want to go after them.

She shares most of the blame but potentially not all.


bigsoftee84 t1_j5fof00 wrote

You're going off off laws that you know from your state and not the place the incident took place to frame this in a way that fits your opinion, not me. A single drink is enough to get some people drunk. Guess the bars in your state don't serve anyone under 120 lbs.


deechbag t1_j5fpaua wrote

Yeah, I'm stating it isn't odd or outrageous that they're being held responsible as they would be if this occurred where I live. People are acting like that's a weird or shocking idea when it seems pretty normal and just to me. And they do but just like restaurants that serve a steak not cooked to 155, they're opening themselves up to legal responsibility should something go wrong.


bigsoftee84 t1_j5g0ef5 wrote

Please provide any evidence supporting your opinion. You've been using your opinion as fact to try to shift blame onto the servers and haven't provided anything other than your opinion to support it. You're now trying to compare it to food handling laws, which are entirely different and exist for entirely different reasons. They are only related in this context because they put liability on the business and not the customer. You're consuming the food with the expectation that it will be prepared properly. This person didn't die from consumption. What do you think the expectation is when consuming alcohol? I assume most understand that it is an intoxicating substance. The consumption of which will make you impaired, and you should not operate a motor vehicle.

This case is like taking seafood home from a restaurant and leaving it on your counter overnight, then suing the restaurant because you got sick eating it for breakfast. Yes, there is a possibility the restaurant is at fault, but your actions are what led to unsafe conditions. The existence of food handling laws does not negate your responsibility for your actions. You created unsafe conditions, and you then ate that food most would agree is unsafe. This person consumed a substance they knew, or at the very least most people recognize would lead to impairment and still got behind the wheel. They didn't have a proper plan or didn't follow it. That isn't the fault of the servers, though according to the suit it is.


deechbag t1_j5g2zqd wrote

I mentioned the law i was refering to but guess a link would have been better. And again i get this doesn't apply here, I'm just saying if this occured elsewhere, her lawsuit wouldn't seem ridiculous and probably would succeed if she can prove she was intoxicated when served.,person%20of%20known%20intemperate%20habi

The food example was just to show that laws are not followed but they are still laws. You can't serve a med rare or rare, don't even think med but can't remember the temps rn, steak legally where I live, as it is not cooked to a safe temp. It is still done tho just like bar serve intoxicated people and they cause injuries without consequences. That was all I was trying to do with that. Provide an example of something that's on the books but ignored.


[deleted] t1_j5dh6at wrote



ViscountessKeller t1_j5djpk1 wrote

it's really crazy how people don't read the articles before offering their opinion. This was in Canada.


[deleted] t1_j5dlh0o wrote



Chard069 t1_j5dmuxs wrote

The road-rule in Mexico is, don't wave your half-empty tequila bottle at police you encounter. They'll only want a share. 8-)