Should Bars Be Held Responsible for Drunk Drivers

[jbg]

An impaired hit and run driver was sentenced to 7 and 1/2 years for killing two women and maiming a man. He left a bar prior to ramming into them after being cut off at the bar. While there he was served 8 drinks including 6 double highballs. I recall this accident as it was very tragic. A woman and her husband had stopped on a highway to offer assistance to a car accident. While helping out, the woman was struck and killed by this drunk driver as well as the woman in the original car accident.

There was no mention of the bar being fined or being held responsible for over serving the driver. When I drive by a bar and see the parking lot full of cars, I wonder how they are getting home. Do they have a DD? Perhaps it's time for bars to arrange shuttle buses to deliver their patrons home safely.

The article is here.

Aren't there "dram shop laws" to deal with that?

[gunrutz]

I think this is an important point that needs highlighting in the longer response that you made. Bars can and have been held responsible when it can be proven that they were clearly negligent. A reasonable person has to be able to look at the facts of the case and come to the conclusion that the bar could have done something to prevent the incident. Yes, "reasonable person" is a vague term, but it's the one that is used in legal cases all the time. This forum is lacking them because people will argue here just for the sake of arguing. However, when you look at a case where the bar knows someone is hammered, but continues to serve them alcohol, they are certainly being irresponsible and can be held liable. Imagine if a bar continued to serve a patron alcohol until they suffered from alcohol poisoning. They would also be responsible in that circumstance too. But it has to do with knowingly serving someone past a point that a reasonable person would think that the patron should be cut off. If a patron leaves the bar and kills people in a wreck, having a BAC 3x the legal limit, then I think any reasonable person would hold the bar liable. If someone leaves the bar and kills people in a wreck and has a BAC barely above the legal limit, I don't think a reasonable person would then hold the bar liable. This is why we have courts to hear the facts of cases. Regardless people here who want to generalize things to the point of absurdity, the courts are charged with hearing the exact details of every situation and determining an outcome from those facts.

What you call reasonable i call allowing the descretion of a prosecutor or a judge to determine the guilt or innocence of a bar owner for serving his legal drink to someone who maybe shouldn't be served, a verdict that could go either way simply because the law is too grey and cannot possibly 100% complied with.

[cybercoma]

The law is not entirely grey. There's guidelines and precedents. That's how our system works. Everyone deserves the circumstances of their case to be heard before a verdict is rendered. No just legal system can predetermine every possible situation.

[guyser]

What you call reasonable i call allowing the descretion of a prosecutor or a judge to determine the guilt or innocence of a bar owner for serving his legal drink to someone who maybe shouldn't be served, a verdict that could go either way simply because the law is too grey and cannot possibly 100% complied with.

Ok fine then.

You are then on the side of.....

1) you are cleaning your gun in the basement, it accidently discharges and kills your wife. 25 years for murder..k ?

2) The car in frotn of you stops sudenly, you hit them...vehicular homicide for you. See ya in 15yrs

3) You're shopping, arms full, put something $2 item in pocket due to full hands, forget to pay, 2yrs $5000 for you

I understand , but let me suggest when its you up there before the judge, facts and case law might be something youre hoping will mitigate your sentence.

[guyser]

Not a good idea at all, although I can see thinking it might be. Not only the maker has a liability but more importantly it would bring the suit quite heavily back on the bar if their breathalyzer said you were OK but the police one after the roadcheck, or heaven forbid, the accident said otherwise.

It could...but a smart owner would get a Certificate of Insurance that indemnifires him at the expense of the maker of said untit.

(basically it says 'let me put this here, and here is insurance that will pay your expenses if we are sued')

[On Guard for Thee]

It could...but a smart owner would get a Certificate of Insurance that indemnifires him at the expense of the maker of said untit.

(basically it says 'let me put this here, and here is insurance that will pay your expenses if we are sued')

I can certainly appreciate how it could help to have such devices in some cases. I think most of know or should know when we've had enough to take us over the legal limit, but it's if you've had a couple of pints over a couple of hours perhaps you might just want to check. It might convince you to order a coffee and read the paper for a half hour or so. In BC you can get a roadside suspension even if you are not impaired and apparently they can get pretty expensive as well.

[dre]

This forum is lacking them because people will argue here just for the sake of arguing. However, when you look at a case where the bar knows someone is hammered, but continues to serve them alcohol, they are certainly being irresponsible and can be held liable.

Even if they know someone is hammered, they dont know which patrons are driving and which ones are not in most establishments.

[Icebound]

I think the car is the culprit.

...but it wont be long before we fix that.

It should not be too long before the cars will recognize whether the driver is impaired or not... if not at start-up... then after a few minutes of erratic operation. So then every light in the vehicle starts flashing in a very noticeable, alternating / strobelike fashion while the vehicle slows down gradually to a stop, at the same time dialing 911.

The technology exists. We mandate seatbelts and airbags, child restraints, why not this?

Might even solve some of the texting problems, as well.

...

[Wilber]

This idiotic reasoning could be applied to virtually every industry. For example, should Goodlife Fitness make sure that their clients aren't working out too strenuously, lest somebody does physical harm to themselves.

Should Tim Horton's monitor a customers donut intake, as to prevent them from suffering from diabetes or obesity?

Should the LCBO and/or Beer Stores limit the amount of alcohol customers can purchase, as to prevent alcoholism?

Should retailers have to limit the purchases of customers if they think they're overspending?

No more personal responsibility! It's all up to somebody else! Yay!

If drunk drivers only had single vehicle accidents that never harmed anyone else, I would say let them drive drunk. Unfortunately that's not the case.

[eyeball]

I think the car is the culprit.

...but it wont be long before we fix that.

It should not be too long before the cars will recognize whether the driver is impaired or not... if not at start-up... then after a few minutes of erratic operation. So then every light in the vehicle starts flashing in a very noticeable, alternating / strobelike fashion while the vehicle slows down gradually to a stop, at the same time dialing 911.

The technology exists. We mandate seatbelts and airbags, child restraints, why not this?

Might even solve some of the texting problems, as well.

...

If a car can do that it should just drive you home.

Edited May 4, 2014 by eyeball

[Icebound]

If a car can do that it should just drive you home.

Sure. Why not? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car

...

[eyeball]

Governor Rick Snyder signed legislation allowing the testing of automated or self-driving vehicles on Michigan’s roads in December 2013, but requires a human in the driver seat at all times while the vehicle is in use.^[11]

Hopefully they'll be able to eliminate this requirement over time. I can't see why they couldn't or wouldn't myself. A mix of automated and human operated vehicles would probably be just as dangerous as the mix of impaired and unimpaired drivers we have now.

[cybercoma]

A human has to be in the driver's seat to take control of the vehicle in the unfortunate event that something goes wrong. They still won't be allowed to be intoxicated. An intoxicated driver in an automated vehicle would be like an intoxicated pilot using autopilot. In both cases, they still need to be aware of their surroundings and be able to take control if the need arises.

Edited May 5, 2014 by cybercoma

[GostHacked]

I think the car is the culprit.

...but it wont be long before we fix that.

It should not be too long before the cars will recognize whether the driver is impaired or not... if not at start-up... then after a few minutes of erratic operation. So then every light in the vehicle starts flashing in a very noticeable, alternating / strobelike fashion while the vehicle slows down gradually to a stop, at the same time dialing 911.

The technology exists. We mandate seatbelts and airbags, child restraints, why not this?

Might even solve some of the texting problems, as well.

...

This goes back to personal responsibility. Technology does not replace responsibility.

[eyeball]

A human has to be in the driver's seat to take control of the vehicle in the unfortunate event that something goes wrong. They still won't be allowed to be intoxicated. An intoxicated driver in an automated vehicle would be like an intoxicated pilot using autopilot. In both cases, they still need to be aware of their surroundings and be able to take control if the need arises.

I guess we're defining what the word automated hands free driving means.

Am I supposed to believe the passenger needs to be sitting behind the wheel paying attention at all times instantly ready to react in the event something goes wrong? You seriously expect people to remain vigilant in this fashion even after hours, days, week, months and eventually years of nothing going wrong?

[cybercoma]

I suspect people won't be. And that's the problem with automated vehicles, imo.

[eyeball]

The problem will be mixing human and computer operated vehicles together. It'll have to be one or the other. You probably wouldn't even notice the drunks.

[gunrutz]

Ok fine then.

You are then on the side of.....

1) you are cleaning your gun in the basement, it accidently discharges and kills your wife. 25 years for murder..k ?

2) The car in frotn of you stops sudenly, you hit them...vehicular homicide for you. See ya in 15yrs

3) You're shopping, arms full, put something $2 item in pocket due to full hands, forget to pay, 2yrs $5000 for you

I understand , but let me suggest when its you up there before the judge, facts and case law might be something youre hoping will mitigate your sentence.

You can strike the word prosecutor if you like, but the process, even if you are found innocent, is in and of itself a punishment, that's just reality, and none of the unfortunate possibilities you mention change the hard fact that it is unfeasible to expect the provider of a legal intoxicant to completely monitor and manage the intake of that substance for all of it's patrons, all of the time. Because, for a variety of reasons, it is impossible to ensure that no one ever drives drunk after leaving a bar or restaurant, and then harms someone, it is ridiculous to expect this task of them, and then wrong to place the ultimate blame upon them for allowing it to happen.

We mostly have free will, people will do stupid and bad things with that, nothing can prevent that, we should beg, and plead with servers and bar owners to not over serve, but it should not be in anyway their responsibility when they do, either purposefully or accidentally. We can all work to reduce drunk driving, but it is wrong to expect someone else to be at fault for an individuals mistake. The alternative is a society without freedom, some people are harmed with the misuse of that freedom, this is true, most of us wouldn't want to live in the kind of society where that freedom is denied us, usually by the state, by force. These things are the unfortunate reality of the real world, innocent people sometimes get hurt, it will always be that way, you don't have to like it, but we all have to live with it, the alternatives are not palatable.

[WestCoastRunner]

The problem I have with this particular case is that the driver (who went on to kill two women) was served six double rye-and-cokes and two shots of Jagermeister before he was cut off. The server remembers how much was served. Why not cut him off earlier or call the Manager to deal with the patron and ensure that this customer was going to call a cab. I am familiar with the neighbourhood and this is a neighbourhood pub. They knew how much he drank and probably knew he was going to drive. Why did they not do more to ensure he was not going to get behind the wheel.

[guyser]

... but the process, even if you are found innocent,

You are found guilty or not guilty. Not guilty or innocent.

is in and of itself a punishment, that's just reality, and none of the unfortunate possibilities you mention change the hard fact that it is unfeasible to expect the provider of a legal intoxicant to completely monitor and manage the intake of that substance for all of it's patrons, all of the time.

Ok stop there. No one, certainly not me, has suggested that a bar owner has to monitor all of its patrons, all the time.

Staff have to but the reaality is there will always be mitigating factors.

Because, for a variety of reasons, it is impossible to ensure that no one ever drives drunk after leaving a bar or restaurant, and then harms someone, it is ridiculous to expect this task of them, and then wrong to place the ultimate blame upon them for allowing it to happen.

No one has said they do.

and plead with servers and bar owners to not over serve, but it should not be in anyway their responsibility when they do, either purposefully or accidentally.

Wow ! Really?

Mike B is drunk, staff at Bar X say "hey lets see how drunk we can get him, ply him with shots every minute.

Mike B dies or kills someone.

Not the bars fault? In this case, almost 100% so. Case law.

Wreckless disregard .

The liability suit agaisnt the bar wont last past discovery when the bar's ins company settles. Abso-effin-utely !

We can all work to reduce drunk driving, but it is wrong to expect someone else to be at fault for an individuals mistake.

Maybe it wasnt an individuals mistake? Again, mitigating factors and its no a black and white issu as some posters here think it is.

The alternative is a society without freedom, some people are harmed with the misuse of that freedom, this is true, most of us wouldn't want to live in the kind of society where that freedom is denied us,

No freedoms were denied, altered, suspended, walked on, .....so what are you saying ?

[WestCoastRunner]

Why would a bar even admit that they served him that amount of alcohol? Wouldn't that set them up for lawsuits (from the victims families)?

[guyser]

Why would a bar even admit that they served him that amount of alcohol? Wouldn't that set them up for lawsuits (from the victims families)?

One ,it would be hard for the server to lie. Pressured from authorities will do that.

Second, the bar pays for insurance to defend these things, so going in to the bar business, they all know they have a responsibility to take care of their patrons and if they dont, they can be held liable. (not directed at you but at others who keep trying the personal responsibility angle)

[WestCoastRunner]

One ,it would be hard for the server to lie. Pressured from authorities will do that.

That makes sense.

[On Guard for Thee]

If drunk drivers only had single vehicle accidents that never harmed anyone else, I would say let them drive drunk. Unfortunately that's not the case.

Let's see, how many vehicular accidents have been chalked up to too many donuts?

And I agree with Cyber's point that a self propelled vehicle woule be a kin to a drunk pilot in the cockpit with the autopilot on. Those autopilots have been proven much more in planes than vehicles, but I don't want to be sitting in the back knowing thats what's going on nor do I want to be approaching another vehicle in the same situation.

[eyeball]

I'm appalled at how many more thousands upon thousands of 1000's and THOUSANDS (did I say 1000's?) of more dead and injured we'll probably suffer before we A ) have a proper medical/science-based Substance Use Act and B ) stop abusing people's fear of science. It's 2014 for crying out loud.

I recall the kids I see with their faces fearlessly plastered up against the front of a driverless Vancouver Sky-Train on approaching another in the same situation whilst closing in on a section of crossover tracks. That said, I recall my late brother telling me of the stress that driving his subway in Toronto could cause him, especially during rush hour. Something about getting used to accelerating towards yellow and red lights and putting his faith in some computer somewhere turning them green at the last second.