Bars don't kill people....or do they???

[Miss Anthrope]

According to this story on my local news station, a man was driving drunk with his girlfriend, they killed someone with their car and left the scene. Now the bars that "over-served" them have had their liquor licenses suspended.

The liquor control board seems to be following the law. My beef is with the law.

Quote:

According to the over-service law, a customer who appears to be intoxicated can't be served or be in possession of a drink in a licensed establishment.

I know these laws are common, but IMO it doesn't make it less silly. People hang out in bars to drink. Many of them with the intention of being drunk. Having been drunk in a bar more times than I can count, the number of times I've driven even mildly intoxicated is zero. Thus you can be assured that those bars that over-served me have caused me to kill a total of zero fellow human beings.

Quote:

Dixon said the bars should be held accountable.

"Absolutely, yes," he said.

But Rhones' parents told KOMO 4 News a seven-day suspension does little to ease their pain.

"I want justice to be served. I want them to pay for what they've done to my family," Steven Rhone Sr. said.

I despise drunk drivers. But how can one blame the bars for serving them? How can anyone else besides the driver and his girlfriend be responsible for this 19 year old young man being run over and left for dead?

I did a little more googling on the story. The driver, Damien Mackay and his girlfriend/passenger never turned themselves in. They were arrested the next day after someone reported their car damage matched the description in the news reports. I suppose being over-served at the bar really did impact their outstanding character, even 24 hours later!

[Miss Anthrope]

Oh wow, the story gets better and better:

Quote:

Abbott allegedly helped conceal the damaged car believed to belong to his 21-year-old nephew, Damian Scott Mackay, by buying a car cover.

So, not only did the kill the guy and drive off, but the driver got his uncle to help him conceal the damage.

But the victim's family want the bars to "pay for what they've done" to his family. Sigh. While I don't want to throw stones at the people grieving , I just find this incredibly misguided.

[timhau]

I smell a civil lawsuit coming. The bars probably have more money than the customers who spend all their money in them.

And I agree fully with your sentiment. If the bar forced them to drink and/or drive away at gunpoint, there would be a case. No bar I've ever spent time in does that (and no, happy hours don't count as force).

BTW, are bars also held responsible for alcohol-related violence?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by timhau

And I agree fully with your sentiment. If the bar forced them to drink and/or drive away at gunpoint, there would be a case. No bar I've ever spent time in does that (and no, happy hours don't count as force).

The problem is that drunks, almost by definition, are not capable of exercising responsible and sober judgement. Drunks do stupid things. People who are in the business of creating drunks have a responsibility not to let them do stupid things.

This isn't new. Do you remember the 1960s TV show "Get Smart"? Don Adams played "Agent 86", which was itself a joke -- 86 was an open codeword that bartenders used to cut of people who, in the opinion of the bartender, had had enough to drink and should be cut off. The usage of the term "86" dates way back (Wikipedia puts it, without citation, to the 1930s.) The idea of controlling drunks dates back to at least Shakespeare.

Quote:

BTW, are bars also held responsible for alcohol-related violence?

Um,... Alcohol-related violence is probably one of the primary reasons that policies like this exist. No one in the 1600s was worried about drunks getting involved in a drunken-hansom cab accident -- but people getting too drunk, starting a fight, and smashing furniture probably dates back to the invention of furniture.

[Ian Osborne]

I'm waiting for the victim of a former soldier to sue the army for teaching him the skills involved in his misbehaviour...

[rtalman]

Originally Posted by timhau

BTW, are bars also held responsible for alcohol-related violence?

Certain bars in Downtown Seattle have been by the Mayor and City Council.

[Luciana]

The bars I frequent all have a line of taxis parked outside. Normally, the bar owner will give water and soda, maybe a few snacks, to taxi drivers so they hang around.

If this was a town with absolutely no taxis, well, even then it would be the drunk driver's fault. It always is. Because I know plenty of people who get seriously drunk and even then know, they just know, that they can't drive.

[Katana]

Whose fault is it?

The person who drank too much and got behind the wheel - bottom line.

[Dancing David]

Originally Posted by Katana

Whose fault is it?

The person who drank too much and got behind the wheel - bottom line.

Thank you, the standard of care applies to the person consuming the product. Otherwise in a free market the consumer will just find a new distributor.

[dudalb]

Originally Posted by Katana

Whose fault is it?

The person who drank too much and got behind the wheel - bottom line.

Agreed 100%.
ALthough I admit that a bartender probably should cut off somebody who is obviously intoxicated,the bar should not be held legally reponsible for what a drunk driver did.

[Miss Anthrope]

The only thing I've ever done while drunk I wouldn't do sober is give out a little too much closely guarded personal information. Nothing earth shattering, I'm just reserved about my personal life with some people.

Perhaps I just drink responsibly? Never been so drunk I passed out, never went home with someone I didn't plan on before I ordered the first round. Certainly never been violent or criminal, but plenty happy. And I never, ever considered driving.

I'm not a fan of the "I was drunk excuse". I have a difficult time believing that someone's true character was altered only because of the booze. Either you're capable of violence, disregard for human life et cetera, or you're not. The drunken state simply removed some inhibition.

[UserGoogol]

Originally Posted by Katana

Whose fault is it?

The person who drank too much and got behind the wheel - bottom line.

Yes, but the thing about drinking too much is that you don't buy the alcohol in one lump sum, and drunkenness is not a binary phenomenon. A person is kind of drunk when they make the decision to become even more drunk.

Furthermore, I don't really think that responsibility is zero-sum. The degree to which one person is responsible is not completely independent of the degree to which another person is responsible, but just because one person is to blame for something does not automatically mean that another person isn't. Human beings aren't powered by magical fairy dust, we're made of flesh and blood and everything we do is (in so far as causation makes any sense at all) caused indirectly by things outside of us. Thus, for every choice a person makes, there is also the choices that made that person make that choice, and so on until the initial appearance of intelligent life. A person is responsible for X to the degree that X followed from their actions, they realistically could have prevented it, and they realistically could have seen it coming. (Although moral responsibility isn't legal responsibility, and there you also have to take into account whether the law is a lesser evil to letting people be irresponsible.) A bar that allows people to get "fairly thoroughly drunk" can reasonably expect that some of its people are going to crash their cars into things.

(Of course, the problem is that our legal system has the zero-sum responsibility built into it to a point, because in civil cases the retribution is given to the harmed party, and thus there's a question of

Originally Posted by Miss Anthrope

I'm not a fan of the "I was drunk excuse". I have a difficult time believing that someone's true character was altered only because of the booze. Either you're capable of violence, disregard for human life et cetera, or you're not. The drunken state simply removed some inhibition.

So? People don't choose their "true character," so it seems unfair that people should responsible for it. The only difference between a sincerely nice person and a jerk who has enough sense to realize he should try to act nice in order to get along with people is that the second person is a bit more "fragile" to aggravating circumstances like ethanol flowing through their veins. The only difference between being a jerk and having a mental illness is simply a matter of degree.

(For the record, I've never actually gotten drunk, in that I'm under 21 and too much of a geek to procure alcohol illegally, so I don't really have any "direct" experience of how alcohol effects people, although as a college student I've certainly been around drunk people.)

[Miss Anthrope]

Originally Posted by UserGoogol

So? People don't choose their "true character," so it seems unfair that people should responsible for it.

While upbringing, sociopathy and such are certainly factors, a person's character is a reflection of their personal morality and choices.

Behavior, for those without serious mental or psychiatric impairments, is a choice.

Quote:

The only difference between a sincerely nice person and a jerk who has enough sense to realize he should try to act nice in order to get along with people is that the second person is a bit more "fragile" to aggravating circumstances like ethanol flowing through their veins. The only difference between being a jerk and having a mental illness is simply a matter of degree.

What? A person does not need to be a truly nice person to stop at the scene of an accident, render aid, call for help, turn themselves in, or not conceal the crime.

A person chooses to consume the adult beverage. A person is responsible for their behavior no matter what intoxicants they put into their body.

I know that, when I'm impaired enough to know I cannot drive, I can still walk up to the bar without staggering and order a drink without slurring my speech. I make a choice not to get so drunk I'm stumbling around, throwing up, talking funny. I could still be drunk, but I know I could fool the bartender. It's his fault if I disregarded everything I know about drunk driving, killed someone, fled, and covered up the crime?

It's not even 1% the bartender's fault.

[Psi Baba]

There is also the factor that, faced with a drunk patron who is demanding more, many bartenders may be quite fearful of refusing someone who could very easily become violent at suddenly hearing they are cut off. Cutting him off could itself invoke violence. Suppose the drunk patron starts attacking other patrons or goes outside and damages someone's car, is the bartender then liable for causing the situation by cutting the guy off when it might not have happened if he hadn't? Suppose the drunk patron attacks the bartender? Who does he sue, himself? The only way around that, then is to cut patrons off just before they are intoxicated. How are you going to do that? Everyone has different thresholds. No bar could stay in business by putting a 3 or 4 drink limit on every customer. (Having said that, I always thought that old 2-drink minimum thing was a bad idea, and I believe some places have outlawed that). I think as soon as you walk into that bar, you have accepted responsibility. I wonder if bar owners can ask customers to sign waivers.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The problem is that drunks, almost by definition, are not capable of exercising responsible and sober judgement. Drunks do stupid things. People who are in the business of creating drunks have a responsibility not to let them do stupid things.

This isn't new. Do you remember the 1960s TV show "Get Smart"? Don Adams played "Agent 86", which was itself a joke -- 86 was an open codeword that bartenders used to cut of people who, in the opinion of the bartender, had had enough to drink and should be cut off. The usage of the term "86" dates way back (Wikipedia puts it, without citation, to the 1930s.) The idea of controlling drunks dates back to at least Shakespeare.

I'm not advocating bars tossing out all control on how much a patron drinks. There is certainly a limit after which one should be 86ed. I've seen waiters wake up sleeping/passed out customers to inquire whether they want another drink (no, not lately, since I don't hang around in those kind of places anymore). That's certainly wrong, and if those patrons got alcohol poisoning, the waiter (and the bar) should be prosecuted.

However, blaming the bar for something the patrons did after they left the premises is iffy. If someone commits murder when they're intoxicated, we hold them fully responsible for their actions; I don't see why drunk driving should be any different. If they were so wasted that they could barely walk then yes, I can see how you could make a case that the bar was serving customers they should have 86ed a beer or two ago (although just the fact that they were falling down drunk 40 minutes after leaving the bar doesn't yet prove this). However, even then, I really don't see how the establishment could be blamed for the DUI or the crash.

[Leif Roar]

Originally Posted by Miss Anthrope

The liquor control board seems to be following the law. My beef is with the law.

[SNIP]

I despise drunk drivers. But how can one blame the bars for serving them?

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand the law doesn't put any responsibility for the drunk driving on the bar. The bar is responsible for not serving obviously intoxicated patrons. The driver is responsible for not driving while under the influence. There's no connection between those two responsibilities: the bar is equally culpable whether the customer gets into his car and kills a person, or if he takes a cab home and falls asleep on the couch with his shoes on. (Although the bar's culpability is more likely to be detected in the former case.)

[Mobyseven]

Originally Posted by timhau

I smell a civil lawsuit coming. The bars probably have more money than the customers who spend all their money in them.

Bingo.

When you're suing someone, you go after the target with the most money first (that you have a chance of winning a case against).

My legal method and reasoning teacher explained it thusly: "If you were standing under this light fitting [gestures to light fitting that has half fallen out of the ceiling] during my seminar and it fell on you on my watch, you wouldn't sue me. I don't have any money, I'm just a damn lecturer. Sue the University, they own half of Carlton."

Of course, she may have just been trying to stop us from suing her.

[strathmeyer]

And where are these laws enforced? Bars in Pittsburgh will still server 'em to me two at a time, even after I can no longer correctly pronounce their names.

[balrog666]

Originally Posted by Miss Anthrope

But the victim's family want the bars to "pay for what they've done" to his family. [snip]

Does that mean the family wants the drink money returned? Ro do they want some compensatory booze of their own?

[fuelair]

Wonderful episode on Frank's Place about this. Which would be better if Frank's Place was still on. Or if Frank's place were issued on DVD.


And I am so happy I have all the Frank's Place episodes taped.

[pipelineaudio]

The bars here have been forced to make their servers into defacto law enforcement officers. They are forced to use psychic powers to predict how old they are (ask for ID for someone who is over 30, no matter how young they look and you face a lawsuit)

They are also forced to use psychic powers to guess how much that person has drunk, whether at the bar or at home, wherever (guess who gets sued when someone has naturally slurred speech and is refused a drink).

Not only the bar, but the individual bartender can be held legally and fiscally responsible for anything that happens within a day of that person leaving the bar.

This hyperNannyism needs to stop

We are now down to ONE rock bar that plays live bands in the maricopa valley, and that one is in danger of being shut down by the noise nannies. The others mostly closed after the smoking ban (thanks nicotene nazis, and before you godwyn me, check your history books, the nazi antismoking campaign is a direct parallel), or immediately previously as the bar\bartender is repsonisble lawsuits started to take effect

I predicted the noise nannies would be next, and they were

Thanks moms

[technoextreme]

Quote:

The bars here have been forced to make their servers into defacto law enforcement officers. They are forced to use psychic powers to predict how old they are (ask for ID for someone who is over 30, no matter how young they look and you face a lawsuit)

For what? Please tell me of such a case. Not only that but it's the same everywhere. Though I think in Massachusetts if you look like your under 30 your getting carded.

Quote:

They are also forced to use psychic powers to guess how much that person has drunk, whether at the bar or at home, wherever (guess who gets sued when someone has naturally slurred speech and is refused a drink).

No one.

Quote:

We are now down to ONE rock bar that plays live bands in the maricopa valley, and that one is in danger of being shut down by the noise nannies.

It's within their rights though. I certainly wouldn't have any problem stopping the rock bar if it's too noisy.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Miss Anthrope

I despise drunk drivers. But how can one blame the bars for serving them? How can anyone else besides the driver and his girlfriend be responsible for this 19 year old young man being run over and left for dead?

No one is saying the bars are completely responsible. No one is saying that they have to pay 100% of the damages while the driver wanders off scott free. But the bar knew that that alcohol impairs judgment, it knew that more alcohol impairs more judgment, it knew that people with bad judgment get hurt and hurt others in ways that would not otherwise have happened, it knew that its drinks contained alcohol, it knew or should have known that the drunker they let their patrons get the more likely it was that someone would get hurt. I have no problem with dram shop acts.

By the way, if you don't like this story you probably really wouldn't like it when the drunk person himself is able to recover damages from the bar that he asked to serve him in the first place.

[dementedcactus]

If they win this case, which they won't if mankind is a logical and reasonable creature, this will set a horrible precedent for all drunks and their subsequent behavior. Bars aren't the problem - Prohibition Era says as much. Drunks aren't even the problem really. Dumbasses are.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by dementedcactus

If they win this case, which they won't if mankind is a logical and reasonable creature, this will set a horrible precedent for all drunks and their subsequent behavior.

Cases like this one have been litigated and won for decades.

Quote:

Bars aren't the problem - Prohibition Era says as much.

I'm pretty sure that the lesson of Prohibition was that people are going to find a way to drink. That's different than the problems of how much they drink and where they drink.

Quote:

Drunks aren't even the problem really. Dumbasses are.

And yet it tends to be the drunk ones who cause the most harm. In fact, one-half of all crimes in the US involve alcohol. One half.

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by drkitten

The problem is that drunks, almost by definition, are not capable of exercising responsible and sober judgement. Drunks do stupid things. People who are in the business of creating drunks have a responsibility not to let them do stupid things.

This is putting the cart before the horse, though. Was he drunk when he decided to take his car to the bar? He knew he was going to be drinking, so why did he drive there?

I've always thought, "Don't drink and drive" was exactly backwards. When I plan to have a few, I leave the car at home!

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by Horatius

I've always thought, "Don't drink and drive" was exactly backwards. When I plan to have a few, I leave the car at home!

Good for you. It changes nothing about the liability of the bar but good for you.

[pipelineaudio]

keep absolving the guilty of their responsibility, assign the blame to someone else, and enjoy your welfare state

oh woe is me, I didnt feel like going to work, give me money for watching tv

oh, woe is me, I was shooting my pistol into an elementary school and a child decided to walk in front of my bullit, sue the child's parents for inflicting emotional grief on me

It would be nice to see a new secession, nannys on one side, and people who feel they should have to take responsibility for their actions on the other.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

keep absolving the guilty of their responsibility, assign the blame to someone else, and enjoy your welfare state

In this matter, the driver is not being absolved of anything. The bar is not liable instead of the friver, it is liable along with the driver. And in no case does the nature of liability have anything to do with rewarding people for not working, which is the definition of welfare state.

Quote:

oh woe is me, I didnt feel like going to work, give me money for watching tv

This is, at best, a strawman argument. Nothing like that happened in this case.

Quote:

oh, woe is me, I was shooting my pistol into an elementary school and a child decided to walk in front of my bullit, sue the child's parents for inflicting emotional grief on me

And this is entirely invented. Please cite one case in the history of the human race where an individual shot a gun in a school, hit a child and then sued that child's parents. Then cite one case where that suit was successful.

Quote:

It would be nice to see a new secession, nannys on one side, and people who feel they should have to take responsibility for their actions on the other.

One of the people who should have to take responsibility for his actions is the bar owner - he invites people to drink alcohol in his establishment knowing that alcohol is a deadly poison not just for those who drink it but for those who encounter such drinkers.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

One of the people who should have to take responsibility for his actions is the bar owner - he invites people to drink alcohol in his establishment knowing that alcohol is a deadly poison not just for those who drink it but for those who encounter such drinkers.

Is that an argument for prohibition? If it's not, how should a responsible bar owner act? Each patron gets one beer, particularly large ones may get two, and then they're required to leave?

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by timhau

Is that an argument for prohibition? If it's not, how should a responsible bar owner act? Each patron gets one beer, particularly large ones may get two, and then they're required to leave?

What would it matter if it were an argument for prohibition? Does the word "prohibition" automatically make the argument wrong?

In any case, it is an argument that people be responsible for the reasonably foreseeable harms that their actions cause. It's not my fault that the bar owner chooses to make a living by inviting people to become insensate at his establishment. He wanted to earn a living that way, he should shoulder the risk.

[timhau]

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

What would it matter if it were an argument for prohibition? Does the word "prohibition" automatically make the argument wrong?

No. However, AFAIK in every Western nation where it has been tried, prohibition has brought along more problems than it helped to solve.

Anyway, was it an argument for prohibition? And as long as operating a bar is legal, how should a responsible bar owner go about his business?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by timhau

Is that an argument for prohibition? If it's not, how should a responsible bar owner act? Each patron gets one beer, particularly large ones may get two, and then they're required to leave?

I can see the little bits of straw sticking out from under the hat here.

I thought the law was fairly clear (although it varies a bit from jurisdiction to jurisdiction).

Here's Pennsylvania's (the so-called Dram Shop Statute):

Quote:

For any licensee or the board, or any employee, servant or agent of such
licensee or the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor
or malted or brewed beverages, or to permit any liquor or malted or brewed
beverages to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated, or
to any insane person, or to any minor, or to habitual drunkards, or persons of
known untempered habits.

So as long as the person looks like he's holding his liquor okay, the bar is off-the hook (the same Dram Shop Act actually explicitly shields the bar if he's not "visibly intoxicated.") Now, I can't find Pennsylvania's definition of "visibly intoxicated," but the term is fairly self-defining -- and New Jersey uses similar language, with the following
definition.

Quote:

"Visibly intoxicated" means a state of intoxication accompanied by a perceptible act or series of acts which present clear signs of intoxication.

So as long as you're not slurring your speech, weaving, and so forth -- signs that a competent bartender should be expected to be alert for anyway, since they're often the signs that trouble is about to break out -- you can be served. When you start performing "acts which present clear signs of intoxication," the bartender needs to cut you off. When you sober up enough later and stop weaving, you can start drinking again....

[timhau]

The problem, as I see it: "visibly intoxicated" is not the DUI limit. If your limit is BAC .08%, that equates to about three bottles or two pints of beer, right? I'm pretty sure I will not be schlurring my schpeech or schtumbling about yet at that point.

[Loss Leader]

Originally Posted by timhau

The problem, as I see it: "visibly intoxicated" is not the DUI limit. If your limit is BAC .08%, that equates to about three bottles or two pints of beer, right? I'm pretty sure I will not be schlurring my schpeech or schtumbling about yet at that point.

How is that a problem? That means that you, the drinker, are totally responsible for your own actions unless and until the person serving you notices that you are "visibly intoxicated." Why should the bar owner be responsible for the accident you caused if he cannot perceive that you are intoxicated? And why should he be required to administer an breath test or force you to walk a straight line rather than just use his lay judgment? At the point where an untrained person can tell you are intoxicated, your server bears some of the responsibility for allowing you out to harm people in your condition.

[pipelineaudio]

So, without recieving law enforcement pay and benefits, bartenders must act as them anyway

They also must use psychic powers in order to know how much someone has had to drink. Maybe you advocate breathalyzers? I dont know how you can police this. Bar owners are showing exactly how, by closing their bars, which was the point of a lot of this in the first place.

[timhau]

I don't think that was quite what you were saying here:

Originally Posted by Loss Leader

No one is saying the bars are completely responsible. No one is saying that they have to pay 100% of the damages while the driver wanders off scott free. But the bar knew that that alcohol impairs judgment, it knew that more alcohol impairs more judgment, it knew that people with bad judgment get hurt and hurt others in ways that would not otherwise have happened, it knew that its drinks contained alcohol, it knew or should have known that the drunker they let their patrons get the more likely it was that someone would get hurt. I have no problem with dram shop acts.

I'm much more in agreement with the 'new you'. But I still don't see how you could hit the bars with anything but a citation for overserving. What's more, the fact that a patron emerges from a bar visibly drunk doesn't mean he/she was served while visibly drunk (and in fact, don't the rules say that you can serve them until they are?); alcohol doesn't start taking effect the second you swallow it.

[dementedcactus]

If the bartender wants to get money he or she is gonna keep serving drinks. And if it's a busy bar can he/she be held responsible for a couple dozen peoples well-being at once, while counting money and mixing drinks like an alchemist?

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by timhau

The problem, as I see it: "visibly intoxicated" is not the DUI limit.

That is correct. Pennsylvania law is fairly explicit on this point -- the bartender is not required to monitor your BAC levels, and as long as you're not stumbling and slurring your way to the car when you leave, he is off the hook for anything you do on the way home. (In PA, this is both statute and established case law; I think NJ has similar phrasing and similar case law.)

Of course, this doesn't prevent someone from filing suit (or from bitching to a newspaper about their intention to file suit) -- you can be sued at any time for anything. In order to establish liabiliy, the victims' families would need to establish that the driver was not just "intoxicated," but 'visibly so" -- of course, if his BAC were 0.5%, any expert MD in the world would be happy to testify that this would almost certainly have produced visual evidence. But with a borderline BAC, the simple fact that the driver was "drunk" is not enough to establish liability for the bar....

[drkitten]

Originally Posted by dementedcactus

If the bartender wants to get money he or she is gonna keep serving drinks. And if it's a busy bar can he/she be held responsible for a couple dozen peoples well-being at once, while counting money and mixing drinks like an alchemist?

Yes. That's part of the legal requirement for being licenced to serve drinks in the first place. If you don't have the skills to monintor who's acting drunk and who isn't, you shouldn't hold the license.