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.