Drunken perv hit by car - Who's fault is it anyway?

[George Costanza]

I do. Wanna have a beer?

Just one?

Hell no - provided, we have a bartender to make sure we don't screw up when we leave.

 

[Annie]

And not the responsibility of the bartender.

So let me get this straight - it's perfectly OK for the bartender (owner) to serve as much booze as he can to as many people as he can, pocket the profits from so doing and then stare blithely off, into the blue, when his drunken patrons stagger forth to do harm to others. That about it?

You don't see anything wrong with that?

What about the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (con buzz pharse) of the flipping BARTENDER?

You twit. That post was not by me, rather Skull. Can't even quote correctly.

 

[Biggles]

The lawsuit names the two drivers?! That is absurd. Personal responsibility by the idiot who got plastered is just thrown out the flippin window.

As far as the bartenders, we do not know how much if any he actually was given to drink at the bar. The bar's only responsibility is to stop serving if anyone is obviously overly intoxicated. It is not the bar's responsibility to get the customer home and tuck him in bed night-night.

Although, in the spread-the-wealth, we-are-all-equal, we-get-taken-care-of, and controlled-by-the-government, perhaps Obama can take over all of the bars in America too.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I do. Wanna have a beer?

Just one?

Hell no - provided, we have a bartender to make sure we don't screw up when we leave.

I'd rather

Drink Alone

[youtube]H8VlcbndXdM[/youtube]

 

[jillian]

Jury selection is expected to begin Monday in a lawsuit filed by the estate of a former Morris County man who was kicked out of a go-go bar and later killed when he was struck by two cars as he tried to cross Route 10.

The lawsuit claims the Roxbury bar, Smiles II, was reckless and negligent when it forced Robert Doyle, 42, of Succasunna, to leave the establishment on the night of Feb. 23, 2006, because he was dangerously intoxicated after drinking at the bar and had earlier passed out.

The victim was "extremely intoxicated, completely incoherent, disoriented and unable to walk ..." the lawsuit claims.

"(The) defendants escorted him (Doyle) out of the door of Smiles II knowing the exit of the premises entered directly onto Route 10, a heavily traveled highway" according to the lawsuit.

Doyle was struck by one car and run over by a second as he tried to cross the highway, the lawsuit states.

The nine-page complaint names the owner of the bar, Kev-She Realty Associates, bartenders Peter Vasilopoulos and Eric Olsen, and two other unnamed bar employees, and the drivers/owners of the two cars, Angel Nickens of Budd Lake and Theresa and Williams Edwards of Andover Township.

Trial begins in case of Roxbury bar ejecting drunk man before he was fatally struck by cars | NJ.com

Always someone else's fault...

you know what dram shop acts are?

and is his being a 'perv' relevant to fault? or you figure you'd prejudice the guy before anyone analyzes the issue.

typical.

 

[chanel]

No Jillian I have always been consistent in my disgust toward pervs. People have every right to hang out in titty bars. They have the right to get shit faced. They don't have the right to my respect. I will always call a perv a perv.

My guess is the family may be overstating how intoxicated he was. I'll check it out later, but I'm fairly certain that most bartenders in NJ are trained and certified by the ABC.They know not to over serve. Bars get a discount on their insurance or something. Its quite possible he was thrown out for simply acting like a perv as many pervs do in titty bars.

 

[xsited1]

...

Trial begins in case of Roxbury bar ejecting drunk man before he was fatally struck by cars | NJ.com

Always someone else's fault...

It's clearly the alcohol maker's fault.

 

[George Costanza]

And not the responsibility of the bartender.

So let me get this straight - it's perfectly OK for the bartender (owner) to serve as much booze as he can to as many people as he can, pocket the profits from so doing and then stare blithely off, into the blue, when his drunken patrons stagger forth to do harm to others. That about it?

You don't see anything wrong with that?

What about the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (con buzz pharse) of the flipping BARTENDER?

You twit. That post was not by me, rather Skull. Can't even quote correctly.

You're calling George Costanza a TWIT?

 

[Luissa]

Yawn.

An adult is the only one responsible for his action.

Laws demanding the business owners act like Mommy are beyond stupid.

Doesn't matter if they are stupid, bartenders know not to over serve people. They also know what can happen if they do, and that they can be held responsible.

So all stupid laws are fine with you?

I happen not to be one of the sheep who bleat in tune with you nanny staters.

Like I said, it doesn't matter if it stupid, the bartender still knows they responsible.
I went through the class to get my bartending licenes, they made it very clear what will happen if you over serve.

 

[Luissa]

The lawsuit claims the Roxbury bar, Smiles II, was reckless and negligent when it forced Robert Doyle, 42, of Succasunna, to leave the establishment on the night of Feb. 23, 2006, because he was dangerously intoxicated after drinking at the bar and had earlier passed out.

This is from the article, so yes they over served him.


And New Jersey has Dram Shop laws...

Some states (such as New Jersey) impose liability on social hosts as well as commercial establishments. This related area of the law is known as social host liability.

Different states' dram shop acts also differ as to whether a person who becomes intoxicated and injures themselves has a cause of action against the establishment that served them. Some states, such as New Jersey, will allow such a cause of action but will instruct the jury to take the intoxicated person's own negligence into account. Other states, such as New York, will not allow a person who injures themselves to bring a lawsuit against the bar that served them, but if that person dies will allow such a person's children to sue the drinking establishment for loss of parental consortium. [1]

Dram shop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I doubt the drivers will have to pay, but I would put money on the bar having to settle.

 

[jillian]

No Jillian I have always been consistent in my disgust toward pervs. People have every right to hang out in titty bars. They have the right to get shit faced. They don't have the right to my respect. I will always call a perv a perv.

My guess is the family may be overstating how intoxicated he was. I'll check it out later, but I'm fairly certain that most bartenders in NJ are trained and certified by the ABC.They know not to over serve. Bars get a discount on their insurance or something. Its quite possible he was thrown out for simply acting like a perv as many pervs do in titty bars.

I don't think someone going to a strip club makes them a perv. I'm glad my husband isn't into that kind of thing, but i could care less if someone else is. and my point was and remains that the nature of the club is irrelevant to liability. it was only contained in the O/P to prejudice people against the injured person.

I'll also remind you that the defendant runs the strip club that you find so distasteful so should have at least an equal amount of your 'disdain'.

 

[Luissa]

No Jillian I have always been consistent in my disgust toward pervs. People have every right to hang out in titty bars. They have the right to get shit faced. They don't have the right to my respect. I will always call a perv a perv.

My guess is the family may be overstating how intoxicated he was. I'll check it out later, but I'm fairly certain that most bartenders in NJ are trained and certified by the ABC.They know not to over serve. Bars get a discount on their insurance or something. Its quite possible he was thrown out for simply acting like a perv as many pervs do in titty bars.

So you have no idea or proof that this guy was acting like a perv?

I can also tell you MANY men have been to strip clubs, I would bet the majority of the men on this board have been to strip clubs. Do you think most of the men on this board are pervs?
I have even been to an "exotic dance club". It is called me young, and in my case we were on a party bus, and I really had no choice. Plus it was right after Washington passed the law you can't smoke in bars, and the club was in Idaho. I guess I am a perv too!

 

[LuckyDan]

So let me get this straight - it's perfectly OK for the bartender (owner) to serve as much booze as he can to as many people as he can, pocket the profits from so doing and then stare blithely off, into the blue, when his drunken patrons stagger forth to do harm to others. That about it?

You don't see anything wrong with that?

What about the PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (con buzz pharse) of the flipping BARTENDER?

yes it is perfectly all right.

If an adult wishes to drink himself blind, it is no one's business.

The bartender is not acting irresponsibly. The drunks at the bar are.

Just because you want to tell everyone what and how much they should drink, eat or whatever because you believe that people are too fucking stupid to make their own decisions is your problem.


So BAAAA BAAAA sheep bleat away.

Dram shop laws always have been controversial, mainly for the reasons you state here. Sure, the drunk at the bar is behaving very irresponsibly. Dram shop laws recognize that. But there are three players in the usual situation: the drunk, the bartender and the innocent person out on the street. Of those three, the only one with presumably any degree of sense and/or awareness, is the bartender. The drunk sure doesn't have the sense not to stagger out there and injure the innocent person. The innocent person has sense, but no awareness.

So the law, I think properly, says that, in such a scenario, responsibility has to fall on the bartender. When you add in the fact that it is the bartender, after all, who is making a profit from the sale of alcohol to the drunk, making him responsible when the drunk messes up makes even more sense.

You obviously don't agree with dram shop laws. OK. I do. Wanna have a beer?

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive lately to hearing libs use the word "profit" but why does that enter into the liability question? How does it make "even more sense" to hold the bartender liable because he was earning a paycheck?

If I throw a party and let my friends drink for free, and one of them crashes their car into somebody's house after I let them leave drunk, am i not just as liable as a bartender? I made no money.

And why did the news item refer to the establishment as a "Go-Go Bar?" I can honestly say I've never set foot in such a place. Nor a discotheque. A titty-bar, sure.

 

[xsited1]

No Jillian I have always been consistent in my disgust toward pervs. People have every right to hang out in titty bars. They have the right to get shit faced. They don't have the right to my respect. I will always call a perv a perv.

My guess is the family may be overstating how intoxicated he was. I'll check it out later, but I'm fairly certain that most bartenders in NJ are trained and certified by the ABC.They know not to over serve. Bars get a discount on their insurance or something. Its quite possible he was thrown out for simply acting like a perv as many pervs do in titty bars.

I don't think someone going to a strip club makes them a perv. I'm glad my husband isn't into that kind of thing, but i could care less if someone else is. and my point was and remains that the nature of the club is irrelevant to liability. it was only contained in the O/P to prejudice people against the injured person.

I'll also remind you that the defendant runs the strip club that you find so distasteful so should have at least an equal amount of your 'disdain'.

I just asked my spousal unit about this. She said a guy who goes into a strip club and gets so drunk he doesn't know what's going on is a perv. I also wonder what kind of damage he caused to the cars that hit him. I'd sue his estate if I were them.

 

[jillian]

I just asked my spousal unit about this. She said a guy who goes into a strip club and gets so drunk he doesn't know what's going on is a perv. I also wonder what kind of damage he caused to the cars that hit him. I'd sue his estate if I were them.

you're all heart.

 

[LuckyDan]

I just asked my spousal unit about this. She said a guy who goes into a strip club and gets so drunk he doesn't know what's going on is a perv. I also wonder what kind of damage he caused to the cars that hit him. I'd sue his estate if I were them.

you're all heart.

Yes, I'm sure this guy's estate will take care of your car. He must have been worth...hundreds.

 

[xsited1]

I just asked my spousal unit about this. She said a guy who goes into a strip club and gets so drunk he doesn't know what's going on is a perv. I also wonder what kind of damage he caused to the cars that hit him. I'd sue his estate if I were them.

you're all heart.

Yes, I'm sure this guy's estate will take care of your car. He must have been worth...hundreds.

You're right. Not even his liver was worth anything.

 

[George Costanza]

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive lately to hearing libs use the word "profit" but why does that enter into the liability question? How does it make "even more sense" to hold the bartender liable because he was earning a paycheck?

Here's the way it works. With drawing money out of a business that serves the public, comes responsibility as well. A business owner is, to some extent and under certain circumstances, responsible for what happens on his business premises. If you want to look at it this way, a bartender who turns a drunk loose on the highway is in the same position as a landlord who maintains a dangerous condition on his premises. Both are negligent and both are held financially responsible when an innocent person is hurt because of their negligence.

That is a very brief explanation of tort liability in the situation under discussion here - the full analysis of it is a lot more complicated, but that's the basic setup.

Briefly stated: People who realize profit from some type of operation must also assume responsibility for harm that comes to others from their running of that operation.

You may not like or agree with that, but that's the way it is.

 

[LuckyDan]

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive lately to hearing libs use the word "profit" but why does that enter into the liability question? How does it make "even more sense" to hold the bartender liable because he was earning a paycheck?

Here's the way it works. With drawing money out of a business that serves the public, comes responsibility as well. A business owner is, to some extent and under certain circumstances, responsible for what happens on his business premises. If you want to look at it this way, a bartender who turns a drunk loose on the highway is in the same position as a landlord who maintains a dangerous condition on his premises. Both are negligent and both are held financially responsible when an innocent person is hurt because of their negligence.

That is a very brief explanation of tort liability in the situation under discussion here - the full analysis of it is a lot more complicated, but that's the basic setup.

Briefly stated: People who realize profit from some type of operation must also assume responsibility for harm that comes to others from their running of that operation.

You may not like or agree with that, but that's the way it is.

It's not at all complicated, really. I was just curious why you added in the profit thing as making even more sense, as if a party-thrower who allows his guests to leave his house drunk is somehow less negligent.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[George Costanza]

Maybe I'm just hypersensitive lately to hearing libs use the word "profit" but why does that enter into the liability question? How does it make "even more sense" to hold the bartender liable because he was earning a paycheck?

Here's the way it works. With drawing money out of a business that serves the public, comes responsibility as well. A business owner is, to some extent and under certain circumstances, responsible for what happens on his business premises. If you want to look at it this way, a bartender who turns a drunk loose on the highway is in the same position as a landlord who maintains a dangerous condition on his premises. Both are negligent and both are held financially responsible when an innocent person is hurt because of their negligence.

That is a very brief explanation of tort liability in the situation under discussion here - the full analysis of it is a lot more complicated, but that's the basic setup.

Briefly stated: People who realize profit from some type of operation must also assume responsibility for harm that comes to others from their running of that operation.

You may not like or agree with that, but that's the way it is.

It's not at all complicated, really. I was just curious why you added in the profit thing as making even more sense, as if a party-thrower who allows his guests to leave his house drunk is somehow less negligent.

Thanks for the reply.

Well, we didn't get into a discussion of duty, foreseeability or proximate cause which, I guarantee you, ARE "all that complicated, really."

The reason I mentioned the "profit" end of it is, that dram shop laws generally apply only to commercial establishments that sell booze - not to a party-thrower in his own home. Both the party-thrower and the bartender could well be equally negligent in turning a drunk loose on the highway, but the dram shop laws only apply to the bartender. However, I think party-throwers have also been successfully sued in this situation on the theory of general negligence, rather than under any specific statute.