deechbag t1_j5erwd3 wrote
Reply to comment by bigsoftee84 in A woman who got wasted at a Marilyn Manson concert blew up $15 million worth of property. She's suing the company that served her. by end_of_rainbow
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.
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.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments