True, but if I were loaded, though not obviously loaded, and I drive my car into crowd of pedestrians and the cops determine I have a blood alcohol level of…whatever…you see where I’m going here. Hey, if a guy is slobbering drunk and falling down, I don’t think any bartender is gonna sell to him. But what is the definition of ‘obviously intoxicated’? How would that be demonstrated? Does there have to be some visible cues that were witnessed by other bar patrons?
I’m assuming(and I know that’s bad) that would look at the blood alcohol level and say if it’s…whatever…then say he must have been obviously, or it should have been obvious to…when it may not have been.
Ha! This is nothing.
An Ontario court judge recently ruled that an employer was liable for an employee getting into a car accident who had been drinking at an office party. The employee turned down several offers of rides home and then WALKED TO ANOTHER BAR AND DRANK FOR OVER AN HOUR! THEN she drove off and smashed herself up. And the courts found the employer who threw the Christmas party responsible! Can you fucking believe that?
As the employer put it; “the only other thing I could have done would have been to steal her car or kidnap her.”
Probably not.
[ul]
[li]It’s human nature to want to blame all our screw-ups on someone else.[/li]
[li]There is already a great deal of legal precedence for this sort of law suit. (translation: legal precedence = “We’ve always done it this way. It’s easier to keep doing it this way than having to think about it again.”)[/li]
[li]Lawyers (remember them?) have a vested interest in the status quo.[/li][/ul]
Okay, maybe that’s a little too cynical. I’ve known a lot of lawyers who were fine upstanding human beings. I’ve also known a few who would pimp their grandmothers for a dollar.
Like everyone else, I’d like to see an end to ‘passing the buck’. We live in a society where (almost) anybody can sue (almost) anybody, and in a way that’s a very good thing. But there will always be abuses and absurdities in any human system.
:looks down:
“Umm…where did this soap box come from?”
spooje:
Some courts have accepted blood alcohol tests as evidence tending to show the customer was “obviously intoxicated.” However, they have only done so when the BAC was so high that it was pretty obvious the guy must have been not just drunk, but pretty goddamned drunk. For instance, one of my home state’s court of appeals recently held that a blood alcohol reading of 0.28% was enough to get the question of whether the customer was obviously intoxicated before the jury. That’s pretty goddamned high, and maybe high enough for the jury to decide that the bartended is full of shit in claiming “Nope, she looked fine to me.” I haven’t studied this issue in particular, but I don’t recall any dramshop cases that allowed blood alcohol tests of less than around 0.20% to establish obvious intoxication at the time of service, at least not without corroborating testimony of the customer’s demeanor.
In fact, most dramshop cases establish obvious intoxication the old fashioned way: eyewitness testimony of slurrred speech, loss of balance, hitting on butt-ugly girls, and so forth.
When my sister told me about this, I couldn’t believe it. For better or worse the sue everybody mentality is working its way into Canada.
It seems that in the near future there will be few options available to us:
- Make everything out of spongy foam.
- Never go anywhere without a lawyer by your side.
- Blame Opal.
This is the perspective thing I was talking about. To say something like “we all knew they were lying” is bullshit. First of all, even if everyone knew, tobacco companies are still liable for lying, right? We’re not going to let them off the hook just because they weren’t doing a very convincing job.
Secondly, what about the people that got hooked before the warning labels? When cigarettes were said to “calm the nerves” and “improve circulation” and all that shit? Complete fabrication that cost lives.
I hate when people try to group all these lawsuits together, saying that the entire tort system is fucked up when in fact there are tons of valid cases being heard.
Wrong. If everyone knew they were lying, then there is no causal connection between the lie and anyone choosing to smoke. No causation, no liability. That’s why all the plaintiffs suing tobacco companies get up on the stand and lie through their fucking teeth that they had never, ever heard that smoking might be unhealthy before they started smoking.
But there are people who beleived the tobacco companies. The tobacco companies should be blamed for people beleiving their lies. And there are people who were addicted to cigarettes before the warnings appeared.
Let’s not forget that tobacco is one of the most addictive substances in existence, and it takes a while for the cumulative effects to cause real harm. Unlike heroin or cocaine, one cigarette won’t kill you. Kids start smoking because it’s “cool”, not beleiving that they are going to be harmed (the invulnerability syndrome that effects a lot of teenagers) or that because they can quit before the long term effects set in, there is no harm in smoking over the short term. But there are millions who want to quit, but cannot overcome the addiction.
Tobacco companies make a product that a: is very highly physically addictive and b. kills the user when used as intended by the manufacturer. When consumers use products in a way that is incosistent with its intended use, the manufacturer cannot be blamed. Black and Decker can hardly be blamed if someone uses one of their hammers to kill. But when a manufacturers product is used as intended and it kills, and the manufacturer knew this was a likely result of such use, the manufacturer should be held responsible.
Drunk driving is not the same. Every time someone drives drunk, they have made a decision that they could have made differently. Many cigarette smokers make the decision to stop smoking, but are incapable of doing so. The situations are not analagous.
Two words. **Natural selection.**Anyone who believed smoking wasn’t bad for them are the kind of numbnuts who smoke while drinking and cleaning thier loaded firearms and playing with matches next to the propane tank.
Horsefeathers. All addictions can be overcome when the addict is willing. spooje will act as exhibit A. The recent asshole who got the multi-billion dollar verdict finally quit when he was diagnosed with cancer, which means he could have quit earlier as well.He just didn’t think cancer could happen to him. Self-delusion is no excuse for anything.
Not everyone who smokes dies. And if they do, so what? I smoked for a lot of years, which was my right. I smoked because I wanted to. I knew it was dangerous but accepted the risk. That’s the deal. If you smoke, you accept the risk. Let’s repeat that. If you smoke, you accept the risk All I want is that you accept the responsibility too. We should be free to risk our lives if that’s what we want to do. God bless America!
[Tom Servo]
STONE HIM! STONE HIM! STONE HIM! RIP HIM UP! WE MUST IMMOLATE HIM!
Oh yeah, shit piss pick…fuck.
No, on second thought…
Fuck you with a pinch of oregano and a hint of lemon juice (from concentrate, of course). Then baste – err fuck – you in leftover gravy from a Reagan-era Thanksgiving, stick a fork in you, and rotissere bake you at 300 degrees for 35 minutes.
Repeat when necessary.
[Tom Servo]
STONE HIM! STONE HIM! STONE HIM! RIP HIM UP! WE MUST IMMOLATE HIM!
Oh yeah, shit piss pick…fuck.
No, on second thought…
Fuck you with a pinch of oregano and a hint of lemon juice (from concentrate, of course). Then baste – err fuck – you in leftover gravy from a Reagan-era Thanksgiving, stick a fork in you, and rotissere bake you at 300 degrees for 35 minutes.
Repeat when necessary.
But how else am I supposed to see it in the dark?
The people who beleived the tobacco companies shouldn’t have. I agree. It’s irrelevant, though. The tobacco companies claimed that cigarettes weren’t a health risk when they knew that they were. This is fraud. When a company commits fraud, and that fraud causes harm to the consumer, the company should be held responsible. That is the one of the purposes of tort law.
You’re overgeneralizing. The fact that you were capable of quitting doesn’t mean that everyone is. Many are, some aren’t, and some are capable of eventually quitting, but die before they are successful. There are people who do quit, but only after permanent damage has been done that shortens their lifespan. The man you refer to, for example.
Yes, everyone who smokes dies. Often, the cause is a smoking-related illness. But if it helps, consider part b amended to b. often kills the user.
Again, you’re generalizing from your case to everyone. Not everyone is like you. Some people, because they started before the government warnings were published, were not aware of the risks. Some people believed there was no risk because they beleived the tobacco companies. People cannot accept a risk they don’t beleive exists.
Two words: informed consent. When someone decides to go sky-diving, they are routinely asked to sign a release form informing them of the risks, and releasing the company from liability. Tobacco companies did exactly the opposite: they told people, over and over again, that their product was safe, hiding data that proved that this was not true. This is fraud. Let me repeat that: this is fraud. Companies that defraud their customers are at least partially responsible for the harm that results.
For the record, though, I agree that it is ludicrous for a drunk driver to recover from the bar who served him/her. It is stupid for courts to award damages to a man who climbs his neighbors fence removes the covering, and jumps into an empty pool. It is moronic to award damages for spilling coffee in your lap. But none of these things amount to fruad.
well having been ot schooners and seeing the bar tenders and such of what goes on there the big suprise is it hasnt happened sooner although i expected someone getting shot
but this law is why most bars in ca have limits on drinks you can serve a person in a given time … also its why that most bartenders in ca has to be licensed now and have to go through a school
my cousin being a licensed bartender in la county explained the law to me and here in ca its supposed ot be the victim of a crash that can sue the bar and the person that caused the crash
heh if schooners closes down it will be to the relief of the moral majority that runs the antelope valley
we have a place called snookys it was topless the community leaders forced it to close down and when the new owner oened it they made it bikini bar …
That doesn’t change the fact that for the last 30 years at least We knew they were lying
Sure it does. It proves that it is at least physically possible to quit. If one person can do it another can as well. It’s all a question of willpower. If you aint got willpower then that’s your problem, not the cigarette companies.
Umm, this doesn’t help your argument. The fact that he was only able to quit once the damage had been done only proves how short sighted he was.
Cite please. How often is the cause smoking related?
They had 30 years to wise up.
I’m sorry, but these people were just stupid.
They obviously didn’t do a very good job hiding that data because for the last 30 odd years every medical professional on the face of the earth has known that smoking is dangerous. Every cigarette packet sold in this country has a warning label on it WARNING SMOKING DAMAGES YOUR HEALTH or WARNING SMOKING CAUSES CANCER or WARNING SMOKING WHILE PREGNANT HARMS YOUR BABY. I don’t care how often the cigarette companies claimed their product was safe, if the people who brought the law suit were too stupid to realise that the products were dangerous, if they shut out every warning they ever got, from medical professionals, from friends with an IQ above room temperature, from the cigarette packets themselves then they are culpable for the consequences. I personally consider the warnings on the packets to be release forms in themselves. By ignoring them, you are putting yourself in danger. You should therefore pay the price.
So they lied, they were wrong to lie and I’ll admit that. But does that automatically negate every modicum of responsibility on the part of the consumer? Of course not!
I refer you to the woderful quote from minty green, posted earlier.
Thanks minty! They were not harmed by the lie because they did not believe the lie. They were harmed by their use of the product, but using the product was entirely their choice.
And it was an informed choice. Unless they spent the last 30 years living on the moon, in a cave, with their fingers stuck in their ears.
This assumes that a. everyone knew the risks when they started smoking, and that b. everyone who says they didn’t know the risks is lying. Those who started smoking before the surgeon general’s warning first appeared did not have the same information we do now. Believing the tobacco companies disinformation may not have been entirely rational, I agree, but it was a beleif that was induced by the tobacco companies themselves. They made the product, they did everything they could to convince people it was safe, knowing that it wasn’t; they are at least partially responsible if people believed what they were told and used the product as it was intended to be used.
This is exactly what I mean by overgeneralizing. The fact that one person can do something is not evidence that other people can do the same thing. People are different, have different physical and psychological make ups, and addiction affects them to a different degree. If I can do it, anyone can is just not a logical argument.
Here’s something we can agree on. It is definitely a question of willpower. You seem to concede here that some people don’t have the willpower to stop smoking. This is something that I have been saying all along. If these people don’t have the willpower to stop smoking, then whether or not to smoke is not a choice they are capable of making. That is the very nature of addiction; some people have the willpower to overcome the physical dependancy, some don’t.
Here you are. But I’m a bit surprised that you don’t just accept that cigarettes kill. I thought “everyone” knew this, and has known this for the past 30 years.
I’ve never claimed that the tobacco companies disinformation removed all responsibility from the consumer. It doesn’t. What I did say was this:
Let me be very clear about this, as I think I have been misunderstood. I believe that the tobacco companies have some responsibility for the harm that their products cause to the people who buy them. I do not think that this absolves people of all responsibilty for making rational, infomed choices. I think 7 and 8 figure punative awards for individual claims is egregious. The person who chooses to start smoking is the person most responsible for the consequences of that choice. I just don’t think that tobacco companies should be absolved of all responsibility for manufacturing a deadly product that frequently kills its user and can damage innocent bystanders.
But herein lie the rub, my friend. I believe(or rather, I fear) that very soon, 7 figure awards for something the plaintiff had control over will be commonplace. I fear that personal responsibility is about to go the way of the Dodo bird. The jury in 3 billion dollar case all but absolved this guy. Said he was innocent victim. Blameless.
If tobacco were outlawed, who would be yelling the loudest? Me? I wouldn’t bat an eye. Smokers, ones that will eventually sue a tobacco company, would yell the loudest that their rights were being infringed.
In my opinion, the strongest argument for tobacco company culpability lies in the percentage of people who start smoking prior to becoming adults. I will try to dig up a cite, but I recall reading that there is an age (19 or 20 years old, I believe) that is a critical milestone–if one has not begun to smoke by that age, it is a virtual certainty that one will not become a regular smoker.
FWIW (not much, I know), my own experience (and of those around me) supports this. I started smoking when I was a freshman in high school. I am not aware of anyone in my circle of friends and family that started smoking as an adult. I’m sure it happens, but I’d be surprised if it happens often. This is directed to the smokers/ex-smokers here (spooje?): just curious, how old were you when you started?
I was already addicted as a child and it was a horrible experience trying to quit–I tried hundreds of times and at one point was convinced I would have a heart attack if I didn’t quit, but still kept smoking. It was a terrible, humiliating state of mind, let me tell you. And I fully concede, I was completely aware it was bad for me. I no longer smoke (almost 3 years off the evil weed!), but that does not mean I won’t at some point die directly from the results of having smoked.
So, bottom line, if we apply the old “well, the consumer should have known better,” I believe it doesn’t hold water–not when dealing with minors, not in my opinion. Companies that do not do everything in their power to reasonably ensure that a dangerous product will not be used by people legally incapable of making rational decisions are liable to some extent. And the last 5 years notwithstanding, given the advertising campaigns employed and the ease of purchasing cigarettes by minors (I was NEVER turned down, not once), why aren’t they responsible?
Is it remotely possible they were unaware of these circumstances?–hell, no, they built whole advertising campaigns catering to the minor consumer! They increased the nicotine amounts in the product to make sure it was tougher to lose their customer base. And they have a long, proud tradition, supported by their own internal records, of lying through their teeth over every aspect of this that would assign them some part of the responsibility for millions and millions of deaths. I say, make 'em pay, the bastards…
Ah but that’s the point. Those who say that they didn’t know the risks ARE lying. For 30 years they have been bombarded with the truth. They may not have been aware of the risks when they started but that is irrelevant. They have had 3 decades to see the error of their ways. The fact is they HAVE seen the error, they’ve just ignored it.
The surgeon generals warning has been around for a long, long time. They were initially lied to by the cigarette companies. They then had the truth made known to them. They then turned their backs on this truth despite the overwhelming mass of proof that showed the dangers of smoking and for 30 years continued to smoke in a little self induced bubble of ignorance. As soon as the warnings came out and the truth was made known to them the responsibility passed from the cigarette manufacturers to the users. They now had the correct information. Did they use it? No. Did they shut themselves off from it? Yes. Did the cigarette companies make them do that? No. It is ridiculous to assert that they still believed the cigarette companies lies after the warnings came out. If they did then they probably would have died from terminal stupidity at some point, anyway.
But it is possible for everyone to quit. I was just using Spooje’s example as a case in point. Serious Nicotine cravings usually desist after about 3 days. Cravings after that are mainly psychological. It doesn’t matter how your physiology is made up you don’t need nicotine to live. It is possible to quit. It might be difficult but it’s not impossible by any stretch of the imagination. This is where we come into the realm of willpower. If you do not have enough will power to quit smoking (and God knows there is plenty of stuff around to help you) then blame for your continuation of the habit can’t be placed on the shoulders of the cigarette companies. It’s your fault if you are too weak to quit.
Just because you don’t have the will power to get off something doesn’t mean you don’t have the choice to try harder.
I readily accept it. I wasn’t challenging the statement, just looking for specifics. I should have made that clear.
I see, so the debate is really whether their lies can constitute fraud after 30 years of anti smoking propaganda. I don’t think they can.
It’s like if you were standing next to a brick wall and there was this little guy there saying “Come on mate, bang your head against it. It won’t kill you”. Now, you’ve banged your head against it before and you’re still alive so you decide to go for it but before you do thousands of people come along and start screaming “Don’t do it! Don’t bang your head. You’ll fracture your skull one day”. And the little guy says “Nah, don’t believe those guys”. So everyone else shows you masses and masses of proof that the little guy is wrong. The little guy then gives you 30 years to go away and think about it. Now, if you come back 30 years later and smack your head against that wall is it your doing or his? I’d say it would be your doing. If you subsequently died from it would it be your fault or his? I’d say your fault.