As I understand it as an ex-amusement park security guard, not a damn thing. Asking them to leave the premises does not equate to forcing them to drive drunk.
We tossed quite a few drunks where we would walk them out to the street gate and they wanted to get their car, we would not allow them back in to do so, they of course made a variety of threats usually involving police which we always told them we would happily call police for them…they usually wandered off after taking a minute to contemplate that their current state and driving in the presence of police officers was not going to work out. Only 1 demanded cops, luckily the cop was nice enough to point out that if he did try to start his car he would test him and arrest him if he failed the test…the guy decided to leave on foot.
Granted it was kinda a dick move to toss them out without their car, but at the same time we were probably doing them and the world a favor. The ones we did this to were obviously way too impaired to drive safely.
Bars do it for customers that ask for it. Walmart’s don’t do it for customers they kick out. And what happens when she hops in this cab and doesn’t feel like paying for it. It’s not like she asked for it. I can’t think of any business that calls cabs to drive customers home on a regular basis that doesn’t serve alcohol.
The decision doesn’t specify exactly, but they use “call the cops” pretty consistently as an example. So I’d guess that had Walmart called the cops, they probably would’ve absolved themselves, regardless of what the woman did after that.
(plus, around here anyways, between off-duty cops as security guards and on-duty cops sitting in their patrol cars in the parking lot, I’m not sure I’ve seen a walmart without a cop near-by. Not sure how universal that is, though.)
No way is this going to end the way the plaintiff wants it to end. There’s too much precedent for Walmart employees’ inability to detain customers, for very good reasons.
Interesting. So (conceivably) it could come down to an acknowledgment that WalMart owes a duty of care, and a simultaneous finding that WalMart has no legal mechanism with which to meet that obligation.
Any data available as to when the incident occurred, and how much is being sought in damages?
What I would guess are going to be key here is what the staff knew, and what they did.
ASSUMING
They KNEW that she drove to the store drunk regularly
The transaction was refused because she was visibly drunk
They did nothing
Then I wouldn’t have too much of a problem with the case going ahead.
What could they have done? A very good question.
I’m guessing there are a lot of things that they could have done that would ameliorate the situation - from asking her if she wanted a coffee, to calling the police, to asking a security guard to keep an eye on her to following her round with a big letter A on placard (joking here).
For me, I’m not neccessarily expecting them to be successful in their actions (after all, they can’t physically detain her) but the could have tried to do something. And don’t we all have a responsibility to try to do something in such a situation?
Maybe if a security guard had been following her out, he could have warned the lady hit to stand to one side?
But just to reiterate - this is based on the idea they KNEW she would be driving drunk, and they did nothing about that.
Note: I do remember one occasion where I was working the forecourt, some guys came in drunk and stoned, on a damaged tyre. As they were leaving I was on the phone to the police. They later got into an accident.
I could have done more, but also, had I tried to stop them, it wouldn’t have been safe for me. (they were all bigger, and there was three of them). I would think, that the act of recognising that they aren’t fit to drive, and then doing something about it is enough to provide some form of protection.
I am going on when I was working late shift at 7-11, to deny beer to a druck person was risky for the violence but with this litigatious society you would be risking it either way. Drunk with meds bad and some people sue cause they want money, deny the meds and even though they were drunk Jolyn Cullum could sue saying it was stress not having them if it wasn’t a quick acting drug or even if it was a everyday med to keep anything under control could sue that that was her only ride for a couple weeks.
I would have called the police just after or delayed her a bit as I was pretending to find it but the drug did not get her more fucked up and that is what this is about. They did not say how they knew she was alone and driving, when I worked at 7-11 we did not sell to drunk as hell people or minors but that was all our legal responsibility. If a cashier has to call in a drunk or their company gets sued then everytime anyone sees what they think is a drunk person leave a bar, or get a half rack in a store then they should be responsible for not calling the cops or stopping them from driving. There is a special place in hell for people that clog up a legal system with crap like this.
I agree with the “no duty” and no proximate cause argument. Wal-Mart didn’t serve the woman alcohol so it doesn’t fall under a dram shop law. They didn’t encourage or facilitate her entering an automobile and inserting a key. Wal-Mart doesn’t owe a duty to everyone in the world for negligent acts of its customers.
The woman choosing to drive her car while intoxicated is a supervening criminal act which breaks the chain of causation even if Wal-Mart did owe a duty to everyone in the world. Dram shop laws were controversial but upheld on the idea that bartenders serving patrons are professionals who should be able to discern the signs of intoxication and not serve people who may leave the bar intoxicated. Wal-Mart is not a professional alcohol purveyor and the rationale doesn’t apply to it.
It is even less culpable than a social host who has no liability in most states. A guy can leave my house after drinking booze that I have given to him, and I can waive as he staggers to his car. If he kills someone, I have no liability. I can’t see why Wal-Mart, who didn’t provide this woman alcohol, should have liability.
I bartended in Illinois a number of years ago and took some sort of licensing test that started with a “B,” I think it was called “BASS.” (Just looked it up- BASSET http://www.bassetcertification.org )
Part of it went over the responsibilities you and your establishment have in the case of either over serving OR having a drunk on premises. I am not a lawyer and neither was the presenter, and in fact we were all a bunch of young idiotic bartenders, but here’s what he said.
This has to do, apparently, with some portion of Illinois law but also applies to other states who have similar laws. Illinois has what’s called “dram shop laws,” which is something I can’t explain other than it sounds really hellishly conservative and prohibition-era type stuff.
A scenario for ya given to me
A guy drives to a bar, has a beer, drives to Dominick’s (RIP), buys beer during the day and has one at home/on the road, drives to another bar and has a beer. He drives home and gets in a wreck. He or the person he hit can sue both bars and Dominick’s: Y/N?
They told me yes, and that even if you only serve one beer, you’re liable for what that one beer can do in contributing to an intoxication.
I see I’m beaten on the dram shop law but it was pressed upon me that if I didn’t go to the greatest lengths I could when noticing someone was inebriated to keep them from getting into a vehicle, I’d be liable and the bar.
If your guest kills someone in your driveway you might have liability. Remember, this accident occurred on Wal-Mart premises, so they at least had a duty to the victim as a business invitee. That is not to say I think they’re liable.