My father and sister are trying to convince me that a bar owner is responsible for vehicle accidents of any of its patrons. Is this true? I don’t see how any bar owner could stay in business if this was true. I realize the owners “cut off” patrons that they believe have had enough to drink. But two beers in an hour is enough to be legally intoxicated…so I don’t see how they could be responsible for accidents. What’s the word?
They could be responsible. They are most certainly not always responsible.
Case 1: The bar owner knew or should have known that one of their patrons would be driving home. They continued to serve him even though he was obviously way too drunk to drive. The bar owner is partially responsible.
Case 2: The bartender (not the owner) does the same thing as in Case 1. The owner isn’t there that night. The bar owner is not responsible.
Case 3: A bar patron has two beers and stops drinking an hour before driving home. He happens to get into a fender bender. The bar owner is not responsible.
Haj
The laws vary from state to state. Here is a case that occurred in Montana.
Here in Ohio there is a law commonly referred to as the “Third Party Liability Law”. It states that (paraphrased) if a patron was served too much alcohol to impair the ability to drive, gets in an accident and injures others, the server or bartender, the manager on duty and the liquor license owner may be held liable for damages; however this law rarely is used. (Personally, I think it was passed to scare the crap out of some bertenders and servers). It is a real law; I have seen it in the Ohio Revised Code at one time or another. I’d wager it varies widely from state to state though.
To hell he isn’t. Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a business is responsible for the torts of their employees if they were committed while performing tasks falling under the scope of their employment. Serving beverages in a bar while the bar is open is most certainly within the scope of employment for a bartender.
Dram shop liability is a question of state law, and different states impose different degrees of liability (if they impose it at all) on bars that overserve their patrons and then allow them to drive. But under no circumstances is the presence or absence of the bar owner a prerequisite for the bar’s liability.
On the one hand it makes sense, and then on the other hand it doesn’t make sense. It’s a judgement call, which isn’t always an easy decision to make. You’d think individuals 21 or older would be responsible for their own actions.
Quite so. Barkeeps are adults who are aware of the possible consequences when one of their customers drives home drunk. If they’ve continued to sell them liquor to obvously inebriated customers, they should take the responsibilty for their actions.
I give up. Googled for an hour and searched the TABC (Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission) website over and over without finding information addressing my question. Any law gurus out there? Dopers, my family needs you! Settle the squabble!
Sadly, everyone seems to desire freedom to do as they wish until the moment of fuckup, at which point someone else must be found to bear responsibility for the aforementioned moment. :rolleyes:
I recall an incident in which a person drank at a party, left and while operating at high speed, skidded on ice, struck a tree, and ended up a quad. This shitstain sued: a) those who threw the party, b) the people whose driveway abutted the state highway, the runoff from which froze creating the ice, c) PENNDOT for improper grading and drainage allowing ice to form, and probably Og for growing the tree, GM for not making the car asshole resistant, and the guy two blocks away walking his big spotted dog.
Sometimes when I view the conduct of other people, I’m ashamed to be a people.
One legal term you could look for is “Dram Shop” laws. Under the dram shop laws of most states, a commercial vendor of alcohol (and sometimes a private social host) who serves alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person or to a minor may be liable for any injury the person who was served causes to a third party (and sometimes to him or herself). A brief summary can be found here
The scope and requirements of dram shop laws vary significantly from state to state, so any specific questions should be referred to a lawyer practicing in this area in the relevant jurisdiction. However, the Texas Dram Shop laws have been explained as:
I don’t have the cites, but from learning the TABC rules so I can serve in this state, yes, a bar owner is responsible.
In fact, in this state, and this seems to me to be disgustingly screwed up, if a person gets intoxicated at bar A, leaves bar A, goes into bar B, DOES NOT DRINK, and then drives home and gets into an accident, bar B will have some responsibility. Because they should have not allowed them to leave.
And that’s where jury trials come in. The plaintiff has to prove to the jury that the alcohol server made a suitably poor/reckless decision to serve (or something lke that, IANAL). And where you have ordinary people making the decsion, there will come some results that make sense to you and some that do not. Just the way the American legal system works. An example of that that you might not agree with was handily provided!
Dances seems to imply that bringing in the homeowner and the DOT is ridiculous. However, it is not at all unlikely that (given a good lawyer) that one or both of these defendants will be found liable. And why? Because a reasonable person would not expect a sudden ice patch to appear on a highway. The DOT DOES have a responsibility to grade and drain roads such that this does not happen. And if the homeowner installed the driveway without permission from the DOT and without proper regard for safety, they could be liable. And yes, icy runoff IS something often considered in roadway design.
First things first: When I submitted my previous post to this thread, I erred by typing in Pit mode, although being in GQ. Some language chosen was inappropriate here, and for that action, I offer my apologies to any Doper who was offended. :o
In response to BoringDad: You’re correct-I do view bringing those parties into the action was and is ridiculous. I’m familiar with the road on which the incident took place, and the driveway connection was at least 40 years old. I’m also familiar with some basics of science, such that I can reasonably expect patches of ice to appear on roadways anywhere between November and April in this part of the world. Lastly, I’m familiar with the concept that no one has ever put a pistol to my head and forced me consume booze, and thereafter strapped me into a motor vehicle and caused me to operate it.
Personal responsibility-what a revolutionary idea!? :rolleyes:
def. responsible in Ontario. If a person leaves a bar after drinking even ONE drink and comes to injury, the bar can actually be held liable (all the “victim” has to do is say that he was drunk). If a person gets drunk and gets injured because of it, the bar (and even the server) are responsible. Heck, if a person comes into a bar drunk as a skunk and you serve them even one alcoholic beverage, if they get injured the last place they were served becomes liable. Technically, if anyone is drinking you, the bar, are supposed to ensure they arrive home safe and sound (which sometimes means taking away their keys and putting them in a cab, etc, although if the dumbass trips and falls over his steps they can STILL sue… ) :rolleyes:
Leastways thats how it was 6 years ago when I had to take my smartserve certification (the “liscence” to serve alcohol).
Obviously I have no knowledge of this incident. It is entirely possible that the charges ARE ridiculous. But that is up to a jury to decide.
I would imagine the plaintiff might argue that PATCHES of ice are NOT to be expected on public roadways in the winter. What would be expected is that the roads are icy or the roads are not icy. That is why they have warnings on bridges that the bridge may be icy even when the rest of the road is not. The length of time the driveway has been there is unimportant. If I plant land mines next to the road and they sit there for 40 years before someone steps on them, I am still liable.
The fact that he was drunk will weigh into comparative negligence as dictated by your state laws.
Personal responsibility? What about corporate responsibility? Governmental responsibility? Should ALL the responsibility rest on the individual in ALL cases? If your state builds a highway with no shoulder and a 10 foot sheer cliff next to the road, you swerve, drop a wheel off the pavement, your car plunges into the ditch, your car explodes like in the movies, and burns you terribly… should you suck it up and take responsibility for driving off the road? The state is not responsible for ignoring reasonable safety precautions on the road? The car manufacturer is not responsible for a design predisposed to exploding?
Personal responsibility happens every day. It just doesn’t make the news. It will only make the news if there is a lawsuit, and some of those will seem reasonable to you, and some will not. (What? Pet peeve? Why do you ask?)