I wonder what “company” is being referred to above.
It can’t be either AC or RIM, that’s for sure!- the SDMB legal eagles have provided
ironclad legal citation establishing that nobody except the actual perps is liable for
anything, so I guess the perps are considered a “company” under these circumstances
by Canadian law. If that is so then I guess once the perps run out of money everyone
who hasn’t collected yet is shit out of luck.
I referred to its potential earlier as a case of “over serving” for which AC
might be considered negligent. Fortunately for AC there is a reputable
Canadian lawyer known to his best friends as “Spoons” who for a reasonable
fee will handle any claims arising from the whole sorry mess. He has citations!
This was unnecessarily hostile. Let’s dial it back.
On the other hand, this–and most of what you posted in several successive posts, including a claim that post #90 lacked a legal citation when it had one–is well over the line. Dial it back a lot.
I believe there’s such a moral leeway in the work force in terms of firing that if an employer so chooses, via whatever the ‘moral revolt impulses created by the offense’ - he can sufficiently fire anyone without the slightest consequences.
It is a tragedy and a blessing over the most trivial details a man can be hired, and likewise fired.
I believe Roger Goodell (the commisioner of the NFL), when he found his old boss who first hired him into the league offices and asked him why he hired him, was told in response, simply:
He can just as well be referring to what it’ll take the companies to handle the passengers who WILL try to sue them (and also the airport bar operators and even Seagram’s/Diageo or whoever made the booze) for their financial or emotional losses under the “deep pockets” angle. You need not be actually liable to be sued, you can be perfectly innocent and still have to pay lawyers a pretty penny to have that explained to the would-be plaintiff.
Here is another link to the trial and decision of the court. In addition to pointing out that neither guy had any criminal record, this article also mentions that “prescription drugs were involved”. Specifically, they were using “sleeping pills”. That could explain a lot, i.e. it wasn’t simply a matter of them not being able to hold their booze (as a number of people have said earlier in this thread).
It’s just a guess, but considering they were flying (and thus may have been nervous) and also crossing many time zones (and thus at high risk for jet lag), they might well have been taking lorazepam or something similar (i.e. “sleeping pills” which also have the effect of reducing both anxiety and jet lag). More to the point, though, lorazepam is well known (if not notorious) for synergizing with alcohol, with the combination being particularly potent to cause amnesia and disinhibition (and, to a large extent, this is true for any “sleeping pill”) .
So, in any case, then, regardless of the specific sleeping pill(s) involved, if they were drinking at a time when they had that type of drug in their system, their behaviour is much less surprising and, I submit, much more forgiveable (i.e. they should still be punished, but talk of lifetime bans is excessive).
It raises an interesting point – to what degree should people be given a break when they combine booze and drugs. You’d have to be living under a rock not to have learned that often booze and drugs do not go well together, so I would expect someone to check the contraindications first.
True enough, but they simply may not have been thinking about such things at the time. In other words, pop an Ativan (or Xanax or whatever) to prevent jet lag and ‘calm the nerves’, and, ‘may I offer you a drink sir?’. Repeat.
ETA: It is also possible that the effects of low oxygen during the flight played a role, when combined with booze and sleeping pills (<= total speculation, mind you)
It was perfectly obvious. “I didn’t read what you said because you didn’t make any citations.” “So I guess you should go have your posts deleted where you didn’t make any citations.” There is no construction of those two sentences where anyone would think the second speaker actually wanted those posts deleted. In fact, it is so obvious that I still have a hard time believing you and Muffin didn’t just intentionally misinterpret it.
Text does handle sarcasm rather well. Writers conveyed it for years without having to have emoticons. Emoticons are just shortcuts.
