Should Bars Be Held Responsible for Drunk Drivers

[overthere]

I think the onus should be on the bar/pub to find out if the patron they are serving drinks to has a ride home (assuming this patron is getting totally hammered). If not, they should arrange transportation, otherwise they need to assume responsibility if this driver kills someone while driving home.

Personally, I hope bar owners can also provide a solution to poverty and enforce world peace. Otherwise, they are liable for both.

Individuals are responsible for their actions. Getting into a vehicle while over .08- not totally hammered exclusively but anything over .08 is criminal negligence and should have severe penalties for that action, not the horror that may or may not follow.

Sieze the vehicle. Every time. Jail the driver. Every time.

[Big Guy]

I believe this to be another case of personal liberty vs the general public safety. The attempt of all these controls is not to punish the drinker but to protect the public. I do not like the idea of some drunk on the road, driving home while me and/or my family are sharing the same road.

The problem with individuals making the decision of their limit while drinking at a bar is that their decision making is as impaired as their ability to drive safely. If the drunken driver makes a bad decision to “have another one” and takes out a tree and himself, then justice has been done. When he takes out another innocent person then that is not fair. Who do we then blame? He was too impaired to make the decision to drive or not so who is at fault?

Law enforcement can help alleviate this problem just by parking outside the parking lots of bars and following those leaving. They could also target wedding banquets, stags and jack and jills. I submit that most people leaving in the early hours would not pass a breath test. But currently, there seems to be an unwritten rule that the drunk should be given a certain running start before they are captured.

[guyser]

So now it's a time sensitive issue? If you poison people slowly it's ok?

Why yes it is,

Ever hear of tobacco?

Liver disease from booze?

Hardening of arteries from certain foods?

Geez shady....seriously? Youre arguing for the sake of arguing and batting .000

[guyser]

No you're missing the point. Shouldn't all businesses be held accountable for the products they sell? Why limit it to bars? That's discrimination.

Of course they should. They in fact are.

There isnt a product sold that does not have Comprehensive General Liability attached to it which includes products and completed operations.

If one were to .....um...think like you, then should Tims wax the floor of an outlet on a rainy day then your slip and fall suit should be immediately dismissed as ' youve got eyes, use them and take personal responsibility'

Yea right.

[Shady]

I guess we can agree to disagree.

[guyser]

The responsibility for consuming it, and what happens after that, should be entirely on the consumer. It's completely ridiculous to expect the bar staff to be responsible for someone else's actions, and it's offensive that people are so ready to deflect personal responsibility onto someone else.

Heres the problem with such a blanket statement as this, and ignorant position considering case law and history.

Product liability can be shared or transferred to third party sellers and users. The bar buys and sells booze. In doing so they assume some responsibility the minute they do. Same as every single other product that exists.

The bar owner has a duty to run a clean establishment, mindful of his patrons actions at all times. The staff is educated on serving people including the amounts they consume, all within reason. If they knowingly and wantonly serve more to onbviously impaired patrons then they have to know they are running a risk and should govern themselves accordingly, including but not limited to trying to ensure they do not drive or cause havoc when said patron leaves.

It is NOT an absolute liability issue, more towards vicarious liability.

Its the same for you a host of a party in your house, and in fact you have an even greater responsibility to ensure no one drives away over the limit and this is because you have greater control on ones own property.

No one is saying, but some are trying to wrongfully argue, that any patron leaving a bar is saddling the bar owner with the defence of a suit caused by a patrons actions on the road or whatever when he or she leaves.

Mitigating factors most definitely come into play, as someone (i think big guy) alluded too, the bar owner would not reasonably know that someone came into his joint with a belly full of beer and sat down and had one more and left. Upon leaving and driving away he causes an accident. If a suit was launched by the injured third party the facts of the case would be looked at and adjudicated. In other words the bar owner likely would not lose if it can be established tha person had one drink and left.

Some many other factors would come into play before a decision is rendered.

Personal responsibility is such a lazy and stupid cop out if one thinks about that for a minute it becomes obvious clear .

What that says is anything that causes harm should be the injured parties problem from the get go. You buy a bike for your 4 yr old, and the guy at the shop says "here, these are really cheap and the brakes pretty much suck but ya know, kids dont go fast at 4'......and the brakes subsequently fail, Jr goes int o traffic and squished.

Yup, no suing that mfr'er/seller for negligence or defective materials. Hey, take responsibility will you? <Sigh>

Now of course in court all those facts will come into play , the court will be told you understood the risk and accepted it, however a prudent and reasonable person would not be able to understand all the ramifications and as such may very well win but at a mitigated level.

And lastly , someone dies from a product going wrong , say a dad for example, the breadwinner. He is an innocent party and now dead. The family sues the seller, the box maker it came in, the manuf'er....all the achieve layers of liability in order to be able to satisfy the judgement. If there is a shortfall in covering the judgement then the next level can make up the difference.

By the way, if you insure your car, you have this coverage in place to cover the shortfalls of another driver. Law states (Ont) that you must have $200,000 in liability. What happens if you successfully sue for $500,000 ?

Your policy makes up the difference. Funny that, you actually took personal responsibility for you and your possessions and family.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Guyser2

[guyser]

I guess we can agree to disagree.

facts and knowledge be damned....right?

Or is that another language for " I have no idea what Im talking about" ?

Stick with this..... ^

[GostHacked]

Why is it ridiculous? Can you expand on your reasoning.

If the bar ferry's people around, then that is more of a problem. A person gets hurt on the bus then can sue, because it is operated by the bar.

The bar should not be responsible for what people do once they leave the bar. And according to this story, the person was cut off. So the bar KNEW he had too much. But still should not be responsible for what others do.

Same thing should apply to people. When I invite someone over and offer them a drink, if they are driving, then it is up to the driver to accept or reject the offer. I always offer the spare bedroom if they cannot drive if they had too much to drink.

And when I am over at a friends, I will have a couple drinks, but I will be sober when driving home. Pace yourself or wait an hour or so after your last drink.

Personal responsibility is what is needed.

[GostHacked]

You should probably meet with families of victims who have been killed by drunk drivers before you suggest this idea is clumsy and ridiculous. You need to develop some empathy skills. As was mentioned in an article posted above, a bar does offer free rides home. That is a start. Try and keep an open mind.

What about the drunk drivers who do not go to bars? People need to develop adult skills.

[GostHacked]

Impaired drivers kill innocent people. How does that compare to goodlife and tim horton's customers. Let's get real shady.

Some diabetics have been pulled over and charged with drunk driving when their blood-sugar is off balance. That can and has led to car crashes. It's not a very good comparison, but it can be slightly applied.

[GostHacked]

You figure drug dealers are getting the dirty end of the stick too do you?

Depend if you are in the pharmaceutical business, or a street thug.

[GostHacked]

Law enforcement can help alleviate this problem just by parking outside the parking lots of bars and following those leaving. They could also target wedding banquets, stags and jack and jills. I submit that most people leaving in the early hours would not pass a breath test. But currently, there seems to be an unwritten rule that the drunk should be given a certain running start before they are captured.

Along with a nanny state, you want a police state to constantly monitor our every action?

[guyser]

If the bar ferry's people around, then that is more of a problem. A person gets hurt on the bus then can sue, because it is operated by the bar.

It is operated by the bar, it is contracted by the bar, including having another layer of liability presented over and above the bar's own insurance. Said person getting hurt ....what happened, how did it happen, all are things that have to be heard in court. It could be the person got hurt because the seat was defective. The bar wouldnt pay for that laoss (unless the level of the liability was lacking)

The bar should not be responsible for what people do once they leave the bar. And according to this story, the person was cut off. So the bar KNEW he had too much. But still should not be responsible for what others do.

Factorsa play a part in the suit.

Two patrons, seperate bars. Each drive and kill someone.

So patron A was plied with booze all afternoon, served repeatedly and knowingly by staff who knew he was drunk and likely drive.

Patron B on the other hand got liquored up at home, stopped in at the bar and had a beer, left the establishment and drove.

Now both get into a crash and kill innocent person.

The suit against the bars should, and likely would, play out thus...Patron B's suit gets dismissed with minimal loss or none at all.

Patrons A's suit gets the full hammer and $1m plus settlement.

Why? Do you agree?

Should they both be equal in result or both thrown out?

Same thing should apply to people. When I invite someone over and offer them a drink, if they are driving, then it is up to the driver to accept or reject the offer. I always offer the spare bedroom if they cannot drive if they had too much to drink.

And when I am over at a friends, I will have a couple drinks, but I will be sober when driving home. Pace yourself or wait an hour or so after your last drink.

Personal responsibility is what is needed.

But you took responsibility for your guests in some part at least, so that mitigates your loss (even though youll likely lose and have your ins co pay out---if not prior to the suit) IOW, you didnt wilfully abdicate your legal reponsibility to them. Now if said person couldnt even walk and was obviously and horribly impaired, you would lose big time. There is a difference there GH.

An hour will do nothing if they are sufficiently impaired, Alcohol metabolizes at a set rate and its a mtyh to think an hour or a coffee will do anything to your BAC.

[GostHacked]

It is operated by the bar, it is contracted by the bar, including having another layer of liability presented over and above the bar's own insurance. Said person getting hurt ....what happened, how did it happen, all are things that have to be heard in court. It could be the person got hurt because the seat was defective. The bar wouldnt pay for that laoss (unless the level of the liability was lacking)

So if a person drives drunk and kills a person, the same process is applied. What happened, how did it happen, ect. Why should the bar be responsible for your inability to monitor yourself?

Two patrons, seperate bars. Each drive and kill someone.

So patron A was plied with booze all afternoon, served repeatedly and knowingly by staff who knew he was drunk and likely drive.

Patron B on the other hand got liquored up at home, stopped in at the bar and had a beer, left the establishment and drove.

Now both get into a crash and kill innocent person.

The suit against the bars should, and likely would, play out thus...Patron B's suit gets dismissed with minimal loss or none at all.

Patrons A's suit gets the full hammer and $1m plus settlement.

Why? Do you agree?

The process of cutting someone off can be arbitrary and each bar owner may have a different interpretation of the regulations. Since it does not really seem to be set in stone, as everyone is affected by alcohol differently.

Should they both be equal in result or both thrown out?

Both should be thrown out. I would be putting a disclaimer at the door, 'Have a drink, but once you leave, you are on your own.' or 'Not responsible for your asshattery once you leave the bar.' 'Don't blame me because you cannot be a responsible adult.' Something like that.

But you took responsibility for your guests in some part at least, so that mitigates your loss (even though youll likely lose and have your ins co pay out---if not prior to the suit) IOW, you didnt wilfully abdicate your legal reponsibility to them. Now if said person couldnt even walk and was obviously and horribly impaired, you would lose big time. There is a difference there GH.

I will NOT take responsibility for someone drunk driving. I do not have any legal responsibility once they leave my place. I make an offer it is up to them to accept. If they don't, then they are on their own.

Here is a real scenario. I have a friend come by now and then and we drink and do some dj mixes. Sometimes we get drunk as a skunk. But he already knew he was going to get drunk and asked to stay the night. So no problem. Other times he will come over but not stay, and may have one or two drinks. This is what responsibility is like. I am doing the right thing by offering, and he is doing the right thing by accepting.

I'll go do some gaming over at a friends place, and have a couple drinks. He offers to let me stay, but I generally go home. I'll be sober by the time I leave his place. But in no way should he be responsible for me once I leave his place.

An hour will do nothing if they are sufficiently impaired, Alcohol metabolizes at a set rate and its a mtyh to think an hour or a coffee will do anything to your BAC.

Then wait another hour. Take responsibility of the situation.

I have done some stupid things when drunk, and have driven drunk. But then again it was my stupid decision to have been drinking in the first place. One bad decision lead to another. So without my willful intent to drink, I would not be making another bad decision. Usually a person does this a couple times before they realize how completely stupid that really was. Most people smarten up. Those who do not smarten up are the ones that are dangerous.

[guyser]

So if a person drives drunk and kills a person, the same process is applied. What happened, how did it happen, ect. Why should the bar be responsible for your inability to monitor yourself?

Because you may not be in a position to monitor yourself after downing X number of drinks. The law recognizes this also.Dont forget the consent issue for sex.

The process of cutting someone off can be arbitrary and each bar owner may have a different interpretation of the regulations. Since it does not really seem to be set in stone, as everyone is affected by alcohol differently.

All that plays out in court. All the facts can be weighed and accordingly applied.

Both should be thrown out. I would be putting a disclaimer at the door, 'Have a drink, but once you leave, you are on your own.' or 'Not responsible for your asshattery once you leave the bar.' 'Don't blame me because you cannot be a responsible adult.' Something like that.

Not only wont work, it hasnt worked and will never work.

You are the owner and with that comes some responsibility to operate in accordance with the law. That includes not serving drunks, nor permitting, as best you can, patrons to leave and drive should they not be.

I am not saying it can be done everytime, but thats why they pay for insurance, and pay a ton of $$ for that coverage.

I will NOT take responsibility for someone drunk driving. I do not have any legal responsibility once they leave my place. I make an offer it is up to them to accept. If they don't, then they are on their own.

I will say this as nicely as possible.

You dont have to, the insurance company will do that for you regardless of how you feel about it. Because the lawyers will KNOW you have to take responsibility for your hosting actions and or inactions.

The law may force you to take responsibility but either way, whatever is decided, payout, fight the suit , the Insurance company will decide the course of action regardless of your feellings.

Usually a person does this a couple times before they realize how completely stupid that really was. Most people smarten up. Those who do not smarten up are the ones that are dangerous.

Those last ones are the ones a bar owner has to be worried about and watch for. And why he pays so much money to the ins co

[Shady]

facts and knowledge be damned....right?

Or is that another language for " I have no idea what Im talking about" ?

Stick with this..... ^

No, the only thing that's be damned is logic and reason. Oh and personal responsibility.

[Shady]

So if a person drives drunk and kills a person, the same process is applied. What happened, how did it happen, ect. Why should the bar be responsible for your inability to monitor yourself?

Exactly. But it's all part of the trend in our society of pushing people's personal responsibility on to others. Now we're just re-inforcing it through bad laws.

[Boges]

Bars and Restaurants should have legit breathalizers at the door for everyone to use before they leave. How much could it cost?

[Shady]

Bars and Restaurants should have legit breathalizers at the door for everyone to use before they leave. How much could it cost?

Ok, and if somebody blows over? You gonna follow them to find out what they do after the leave the establishment?

[guyser]

Exactly. But it's all part of the trend in our society of pushing people's personal responsibility on to others. Now we're just re-inforcing it through bad laws.

Actually it is not a trend as you would like to push it as. Not even close.

Product liability, operations liability, vicarious liability and certainly host liquor liability have been front and centre for eons.

What may have changed is the breadth of who may have to pay out in a suit.

And , for the record, you are difinitely advocating for people to be irresponsible and without consequence.

IOW , you actually dont know what you are arguing.

The bar owner has responsibility, not ONE person has suggested the patron doesn t bear any responsibility so stop with the black and white, either or crap since thats not what is happening.

[guyser]

Bars and Restaurants should have legit breathalizers at the door for everyone to use before they leave. How much could it cost?

Whos who ?

The resto pays the cost to buy and install.

The maker has a liability if his product doesnt work right and something happened that was relied on.

And that last point gets to the heart of the matter.

Those breathalizers are not tested enough for accuracy and can get out of whack by the mere installation of same. (knocking them about when putting on the wall)

Its been tried, but they fail most of the time to be rendered unreliable.

[guyser]

No, the only thing that's be damned is logic and reason. Oh and personal responsibility.

Well....when you take some responsibility and apply any logic and reason to this discussion it could be fruitful

However if you continue to spout nonsense and black and white answers to something that is decidedly colourful, then logic and reason are your achilles heel.

[On Guard for Thee]

Whos who ?

The resto pays the cost to buy and install.

The maker has a liability if his product doesnt work right and something happened that was relied on.

And that last point gets to the heart of the matter.

Those breathalizers are not tested enough for accuracy and can get out of whack by the mere installation of same. (knocking them about when putting on the wall)

Its been tried, but they fail most of the time to be rendered unreliable.

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.

[cybercoma]

The staff is educated on serving people including the amounts they consume, all within reason. If they knowingly and wantonly serve more to an obviously impaired patrons then they have to know they are running a risk and should govern themselves accordingly, including but not limited to trying to ensure they do not drive or cause havoc when said patron leaves.

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.

[cybercoma]

The bar owner has responsibility, not ONE person has suggested the patron doesn t bear any responsibility so stop with the black and white, either or crap since thats not what is happening.

Things are so much easier to understand if it's black and white though.