Wow, that sets a clear precedent that anyone injured or otherwise harmed by Jan 6 can and should be able to sue Trump? Or is it that since it’s Fifth Circuit, it’s ongoing going to be narrowly applied against non-Republican leaders of protest.
Meaning the appellate court (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals) declined to overturn the trial court (District Court) holding that the police officer could sue McKesson for – I guess you’d call it vicarious liability. If one wanted to stretch the principle near the breaking point.
Claiming a person is liable because when they put an organized peaceful protest together that somebody might misbehave after showing up is a clear First Amendment violation.
Unless the guy who organized it said in a speech, “He who is without sin cast the first stone,” and somebody threw a rock at a cop.
You would think so, wouldn’t you? In a sane country you’d be right. But we’re here, where a radical-right Circuit Court can come up with this type of ruling, and a rogue SCOTUS will likely uphold it.
If the appellate court declines to hear the appeal, does the rogue SCOTUS even get a chance to rule on it?
The Fifth Circuit decision is ruling on the appeal from the trial court. The loser at that appellate level is entitled to pursue a further appeal to SCOTUS, which may take it up or refuse to hear it, in which case the lower court’s holding will stand.
I think they might want to hear it. I cannot believe that ANYONE wants that precedent. By that logic, anyone can sue Donald Trump for anything that happens at one of his rallies.
The news report was in fact that the SCOTUS has declined to hear the appeal from the Fifth Circuit, without going into the merits, so the decision AIUI stands in this case and for similar cases in the Fifth Circuit.
I guess the solution to to file suit against the America-hating fuckstick in DC, hope for a different outcome, and make SCOTUS figure it out.
Horrible!
In suburban Seattle, a Doordash driver with a suspended license handed off a bottle of liquor to an underage individual even after carding them and finding they were too young to purchase alcohol.
Turned out this was a sting operation - and as a result, the liquor board is fining the store the liquor was ordered from.
If I was the liquor store I would be fining DoorDash for the amount of the fine, plus damages. How is it the store’s fault that the liquor was delivered to an underage person?
I suppose you could argue that any store is responsible for all the actions of DoorDash workers who deliver for that store - a legal conclusion that DoorDash would not appreciate!
The article quotes the liquor store manager, “I reread the contract and they guaranteed us that they will ID everyone and the order won’t be completed until the order is scanned.” So perhaps the liquor store can go after Doordash for the amount of the fine? Otherwise, of course the store is responsible; Doordash operated as their agent.
I’ve had alcohol delivered in the past and that is how it’s supposed to work - the driver is supposed to take pictures of your license, front and back, and confirm that it matches the delivery info and what you have uploaded to your account. The store has no access to any of that info - all they get is the order.
The responsibility of various parties is going to depend on local laws regarding the sale (and resale) of alcohol and the terms of the agreement between the retailer, DoorDash and the ultimate customer.
Washington should just ban alcohol delivery services and stop fucking around.
This is like holding a sting operation where you have agents pose as underage kids to bribe an adult to go into a liquor store then going after the store after he does it. The store literally has no way to prevent it. They are effectively making such a business illegal so they should just go ahead and disallow it.
What liquor store would ever use this service knowing that this can happen?
As I’ve mentioned many times, I work in a grocery store that sells liquor, so this case interests me on a personal level. (Our store doesn’t do any form of delivery or online ordering, but might in the future if it becomes enough of a business necessity to keep up with our competitors.)
This is clearly a case of the law failing to keep up with technology, which is especially problematic since WA only started allowing alcohol delivery in response to the covid shutdowns. The merchant should be responsible in theory, but the way the system is set up, the merchant has no way of vetting the customer or the delivery person and has to rely on Doordash’s guarantee - except that, as we now see, when Doordash screws up, the state holds the retailer accountable.
IMO the store should sue Doordash and the state needs to either shift the burden for deliveries onto the delivery company or else end alcohol delivery altogether, because as Atamasama says you’d have to be crazy to do alcohol sales with Doordash from now on.
The article does say the delivery driver was also cited, which is good, but Doordash needs to be held accountable too.
(Oh, and BTW, the scheme Atamasama describes is called “shoulder-tapping” and it’s something they train us to watch our for, but I don’t believe they do stings that way - every time we’ve got an attempted sting they send in someone who is underage, looks underage, and will show their real ID that shows they’re underage when prompted for it.)
If it’s an online order the merchant could require the customer to upload images of driver’s license or other ID.
I agree, but right now that’s not how any of the delivery services do it AFAIK - all the merchant gets is the order and the name of the customer. I don’t even think they get the name of the delivery person until they show up.
It’s clearly a system that’s failing merchants and the public.