Should Bars be held accountable?

[Lamorak]

The bar should just have a breath analyzer at the serving point, and if you are over the limit for driving per that particular state's laws then you don't get served, whether you are actually driving or not.

Of course, that would eat into the bar's profits. Let's not pretend the bar is some innocent victim here, they make money by selling the most alcohol they can on any given night, or for serving large amounts of cheap alcohol while charging high covers.

As for the comment it's like the rape victim being blamed for wearing provocative clothing, no, it's nothing like that. That is an actual victim of a horrendous crime. It's more like the hooker that didn't know she was robbed until the check bounced.

[pormis]

this is one of those tough issues. imo, it's too many variables and puts too much of an onus on bartenders. especially when it's not just the bartenders serving drinks but also waitresses.

i live near a college town and can still remember drinking in my college days. you go to a bar near campus, one out of five people maybe drove there. some came in groups (and thus a driver), some walked, others used their bus passes. but a bartender and a waitress does not know this. they'd have to limit everyone and thus cut out a good bit of income. not to mention many times you drank BEFORE you went out.

and there's the fact that you may be planning all along to take a taxi home. but your server isn't going to know any of that.

then, you have someone who is well past the stage of should be driving a car but not be visibly intoxicated. especially if they drank somewhere else first. by the time someone is visibly drunk, it's too late, unless you're going to force coffee down their throats for the next several hours. you cut them off, so what? they are still drunk.

my brother is a bartender and he does deal with this some. usually it's by keeping track of how many actual liquor drinks he served someone per hour over time. but, again this can be completely out the window if the person came in intoxicated or went out to their car and smoked a joint before taking off (this actually happened, he totalled several parked cars).

but you try tracking that on a busy night when you're serving dozens of people coming and going, buying drinks for their friends and not themselves...

you really want to stop drinking and driving, you put the breathanalyzer in the car. over the limit, car doesnt start.

[Damieux]

Originally posted by pormis
imo, it's too many variables and puts too much of an onus on bartenders.

I think what you are missing is that the bar has to be proven to have done something wrong to be held liable.

My knowledge of this area of law is sparse. However, typically for a victim to recover against a bar under a Dram Shop Act, the victim must prove that the alcohol providers served someone who was either under age or who they knew was intoxicated. The alternative to a Dram Shop Act would be to sue the bar under general negligence. Again, the victim would have to prove, among other things, that the bar acted unreasonably in serving alcohol to the drunk. This means that the victim will have to prove something along the lines of the bar didn’t properly train its staff, the drunk was visibly intoxicated or the bar served the drunk an excessive number of drinks. The bar shouldn’t end up being liable as long as it acts reasonably.

Of course, even the most prudent bar likely may still have to face a frivolous suit. As mentioned, however, the bar can protect itself against this risk by purchasing insurance. Once again, this is simply a cost of doing business that the bar can pass along to its customers.

[Vidare]

Here in Manitoba, Canada, we've got some of the toughest drinking and driving laws. The national limit is .008, but if you get caught with .005 on the breath test, you will be charged, because Manitoba passed legislation that allows police to charge people who blow at .005 and over. Drinks here used to be cheap like borscht. $0.25 for a glass of draft, $0.75 for a half pitcher, and $1.25 for a pitcher. Around 4 years ago, a university student was out drinking. He got rather intoxicated. The bar was just off one of the University campus', which happened to be not far from one of the few rivers that runs through the city. The guy, quite drunk, staggered home from the bar. Unfortunately, because of his state of inebriation, he slipped when he was walking along the river bank on the way home, and drowned. He was missing for two weeks. When they finally found him, and conducted the investigation, the city and province took another look at the drink prices. After about 6mths of discussions, they instituted a minimum drink price of $2.25. If I remember right, the fellow's parents were going to sue the bar for allowing him to walk out without verifying that he was in reasonable shape to 1)get home on his own, 2)have friends who could make sure he'd get home, and 3)for not calling a cab if none of the above were available. He was 21yrs old, in his third and final year of psychology(I think).

So, yeah. I say if they can prove that the bar staff didn't at least made an -reasonable- attempt to have the person arrive home safely, then yeah, go ahead and charge/sue/fine/shut down the place.

[Azyael]

Originally posted by Damieux

If the industry (i.e., the bar) profited from serving the drunk past the point of reasonable care, then it is entirely fair that the industry should pay for the damage caused by the drunk instead of the victim.

What exactly is 'reasonable care'? That is a very loose term considering how greatly the effects of alcohol vary between individuals. However, lets disregard the variations and assume that alcohol affects everyone at the same rate. At what point then do you cut your patrons off?

No, I see no reason to force bartenders to act like babysitters. A bar is not a day care. Alcohol has been around for ages and its proficiency in altering the decision-making ability of those whom it intoxicates is common knowledge. A man who walks into a bar and consumes these intoxicants does so with the knowledge and intent of losing his coherent reasoning. Whether he consumes one beverage, or twenty-five, it simply does not matter. His following actions are his and his alone, and should be treated as such.

[i]Orignally posted by Vidare[/]

After about 6mths of discussions, they instituted a minimum drink price of $2.25. If I remember right, the fellow's parents were going to sue the bar for allowing him to walk out without verifying that he was in reasonable shape to 1)get home on his own, 2)have friends who could make sure he'd get home, and 3)for not calling a cab if none of the above were available. He was 21yrs old, in his third and final year of psychology(I think).

How did the Bar become responsible for your transportation?

These are the types of things he should have planned for -before-he went out drinking. If he was expecting to get hammered at the Bar, he should have aquired himself a DA (Designated Angel) to ensure that he did nothing destructive while intoxicated and made sure he found his way back home safely. Otherwise, in my opinion, his death is his own fault.

[Frobozz]

Originally posted by Azoryn
What exactly is 'reasonable care'? That is a very loose term considering how greatly the effects of alcohol vary between individuals.

That is a term that haunts the legal profession, law students, and tort classes all over the country. It's a legal term of art that means something very specific. It is the quintessential requirement for almost any and every negligence cause of action, that the person being sued acted as a reasonable prudent person and/or used reasonable care.

On a side note, if you toss out reasonable care you come up with strict liability, which in my opinion sucks.

As I see it, while I am a big advocate of people taking care of themselves and taking responsibility for themselves, when you enter the alcohol-service areas of the hospitality industry, you need to take some precautions. You are dealing with mind-altering substances, and you have a duty of care to those who do the serving, and those who are served.

I don't know about the States, but in Australia it is a heavily policed law that you may not serve alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated. How drunk is too drunk? I don't know, however as I don't serve alcohol, or run an establishment that does, I don't need to know. If a barman is unable to tell if someone is too drunk to serve alcohol to, then they shouldn't be a barman.

Barmen are expected to always err on the side of safety. How many multi-million dollar lawsuits have you heard about because a barman refused to serve someone they believed to be intoxicated more alcohol? They have that right, they have that responsibility, and should stand by it firmly.

If there is a fight in a bar or club, and someone is very seriously injured, the security for that bar or club with find themselves in a very bad position. That's because it's their responsibility to not let in anyone they believe to be of a violent nature, and to eject anyone that is causing problems in this respect.

Now, if someone is a bit pissed, decides to drive, and gets themselves smashed up, I most certainly agree that it's no-ones problem but their own (assuming they caused the accident), however that's rarely the case when you're talking about law suits against bars. Generally it's (as was previously stated) because the person was continually served alcohol beyond the point of their intoxication, which as I said (in regards to Australia at least) is a SERIOUS crime on behalf of the bar, and can (and often does) result in the loss of license (not something cheaply attained) and a heavy fine (I believe in the vicinity of $50,000).

I agree that people need to take responsibility for their actions, however it is a mind-altering substance, and one provided for a charge by bars, and therefore they most definitely have the responsibility to not serve beyond a point of intoxication, and if they believe someone to be incapable of driving, they have a duty of care to the general public and their patron(s) to attempt to provide another option for the intoxicated patron.

Dol