Homosexual Liberal Atheists ~ What's UP with that?

[green 6]

I wonder how the bartender/drunk driving issue would play out in court. E.g. if I'm walking down a sidwalk and a car hops the curb and disables me, I could sue the person whose property the sidewalk was on, I could sue the driver of the car, I could sue the manufacturer of the car, I could sue the city that failed to put up a cautionary sign or the DOT that contracted the designer who made the turn so sharp that cars are likely to hop the curb... *sigh*

I use myself as an example, but actually I'm disgusted by our sue happy society.

But I wonder where liability WOULD end. Could end. If we're going to hold the bartender partially responsible, then we have to hold the bar establishment responsible too. Do we hold the liquor companies responsible? How about the friends who didn't take the person's keys away? Are they less at-fault than the bartender? And on...

Hmm.

Up here all those other law suits would be considered frivolous and for the law suit against the bartender or host to proceed it would have to be proven that he knowingly continued to serve drinks to someone who was drunk and was going to drive. What many people end up doing is confiscating the drunk's car keys and sending him or her home in a taxi, having someone else drive him home, or having him spend the night if it is a private party.

MADD - Mothers Against Drunk Driving have made big inroads on public attitudes up here and now drinking and driving are viewed in much the same way as smoking is. I know that whenever we go to a party we take public transportation or we cab it.

The people who tend to party and drive and then crash are most often teenagers. At that age everyone believes that the rules are made for other folk.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

I wonder how the bartender/drunk driving issue would play out in court. E.g. if I'm walking down a sidwalk and a car hops the curb and disables me, I could sue the person whose property the sidewalk was on, I could sue the driver of the car, I could sue the manufacturer of the car, I could sue the city that failed to put up a cautionary sign or the DOT that contracted the designer who made the turn so sharp that cars are likely to hop the curb... *sigh*

I use myself as an example, but actually I'm disgusted by our sue happy society.

But I wonder where liability WOULD end. Could end. If we're going to hold the bartender partially responsible, then we have to hold the bar establishment responsible too. Do we hold the liquor companies responsible? How about the friends who didn't take the person's keys away? Are they less at-fault than the bartender? And on...

Hmm.

Yes, yes ,yes, no, no,yes.

Just a joke (above).

The sidewalk owner has no responsibility because the sidewalk did not contribute to the injury.

This country uses a contributory negligence system in court. If two drivers collide and one driver is judged 80% at fault and the other driver is 20% at fault, they subtract 20 from 80 ( equals 60) and the 80% driver's insurance has to pay 60% of the damage to the 20% driver.

Getting back to your questions: Unless the car had steering or brake defects that the manufacturer knew about and yet failed to recall the car to be fixed, they are not at fault because their negligence did not contribute to the injury.

All cities have a speed limit even if not posted. Unless there was a defect in the road pavement that could coarse cars to go out of control, then the city is not at fault because their negligence did not contribute to the injury. However if there was a rut in the street that could lock a wheel into a course that a driver could not control or if there was no sign warning the driver of the need to drive slower because of a dangerous turn ahead, then the city could be held liable for their percentage of the amount awarded to you. Both the amount and the percentage would be decided by the jury.

It is not as difficult as your question tries to make it.

In the bartender/drunk driver situation, depending on what witnesses say about how the drunk was acting before he was served his last few drinks, the jury might decide that the driver did $100,000 of damage and the drivers was 80% responsible and the bartender (and bar owner) were 20% responsible. Most likely the driver's insurance would pay $80,000 and the bar's insurance would pay $20.

If I was going to get a job as a bartender (and I have thought about it), I would first find out if my perspective employee had insurance and if I was covered in a liability case as described. If I owned a bar, I would cover my butt with insurance. I as a private person who owns 2 rental units and at one time owned 4, I have coverage for liability regarding injuries on my properties and an Umbrella policy for $1,000,000. It is the price of doing business.

Before anyone talks about our suit happy society, consider that manufactures take the easy way out. Ford knew that their Pinto gas tanks were prone to explosion in rear end collisions. Ford knew it would cost $11 per new car to fix the problem and about $40 to correct the problem in cars already on the road, but a memo was sent that it was not "cost effective" to correct either the new cars or the cars already on the road.

A women was burned so bad in her Pinto, that she required over 100 surgeries. Her husband and her children left her because she was too grotesque to look at. She sued Ford and won over $100,000,000.

Ford will probably put that into the equation the next time that they need to decide if it is "cost effective" to correct a possible exploding gas tank. And GM, Toyota, Mercedes, Volvo, ect., will probably also build saver cars because of that lawsuit.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Ok I used to be a bartender, and I agree that they have some responsibility to the rest of the world to cut people off when they are over the limit, BUT let's be realistic. THEY CAN NOT MONITOR everyone. They do not sign up to be babysitters, they are bartenders. I would make friends with my regulars and learn how to cut them off without making a big deal about it. BUT there have been times I have been physically assaulted for cutting someone off. The bottom line is, it is NOT a bartender's job to know YOUR limits. This is coming from someone who lost a family member to a drunk driver. I do not hold the bartender responsible. It was HIS choice to drink and drive. Bartenders actually take on a lot of roles that can help to cut someone off, but I do not feel that it ultimately their job. If I cut someone off, and they are determined to drink that night they will continue to do so.

I feel for you and the problem, but if the law in your town/city/state says you can be held liable, then the bar owner had better get you help in the form of bouncers or other bartenders. My female friend used to be a bartender and there was always a male manager there to come to her aid.

I would not work in a bar if the owner did not protect me and his business. He is not a good businessman if he leaves himself open to violence and/or liability lawsuits.

[BJean 16]

Great points to ponder Wheet because that's exactly where a lawyer would go with this until he finally reached the Supreme Court with one argument or other.

TOM: I don't have a short temper. I do have strong thoughts on this subject.

I never drink and drive, but I did once. I was with my two best friends and we went to dinner at a fun Mexican restaurant. One was visiting with me from Orlando, the other from Denver. We started off with a couple of margaritas over dinner. Then another one after dinner. Then the restaurant said we'd had enough margaritas. So we ordered beers. We were having such a fantastic reunion, and everything was so hilarious. The next thing we knew, the restaurant was closing. We'd started this little party at 6 PM and it was now 11:00.

We had no choice but to take the party home and continue our catching up on the good times we'd been missing. I drove us home over the back roads and we reached my house safe and sound, but I have no idea how I did it. I have no memory of the drive at all. I could very easily have run into a tree or a ditch or another car or a house, for that matter. If I had killed or injured one of those women, I couldn't have lived with the pain. It was absolutely not the restaurant or waiters fault that I drank and drove. They were not responsible for my irresponsibility! All I would have had to do was call my husband and he would have come to get us.

People are so quick to blame everyone else when something goes wrong in their lives. You should have been more responsible and not have agreed to a third drink and the ones that followed. There are bad bartenders, no doubt about that. You should realize that before ever ordering the first drink, but if we pass a law that says that the bartender is responsible for your bad behavior, what is the motivation for you to take the responsiblity for yourself when you're sitting at a bar? Blame it on the bartender because he forced you to buy drinks? Really?

I never said that the bartender shouldn't be taught to learn when a person has had too much to drink. They should learn it and they should get into trouble (lose their liquor license, pay a stiff fine, etc.) if they knowingly serve someone who is drunk. But we are responsible for our own behavior, we shouldn't expect anyone else to take the blame for our own supidity and weaknesses.

I am glad that Mother's Against Drunk Driving and others have brought the problem of drunk drivers to an awareness that may prevent people from drinking and driving. Better enforcement of the laws about driving while intoxicated is vital in the process of people being more responsible public drinkers. The whole concept of having a designated driver has caught on with much of the younger generation. Strike one for the MADD organization!

Sorry you were taken advantage of by an unscrupulous bartender, but you did learn a lesson and I'll bet you won't make that mistake again. Fortunately, you didn't harm anyone in the process. But if you had hurt someone, it wouldn't have mattered to you very much if the bartender had been punished. Your life would have probably been ruined, and that of the person you harmed.

[BJean 16]

P.S. Actually TOM I'm a happy drunk. You'd probably like me better if I had a couple of stiff ones in me. Come to think of it, so would I. :faint:

[Wheetsin 714]

I like stiff ones in me.

Oh, are you talking about drinks?

[BJean 16]

No, of course not. Glad you follow my disjointed (oops) thinking, Wheet!

[Carlene 12]

Everyone wants someone else to shoulder the blame! Drives me CRAZY!!!!

Remember the woman who sued McDonald's (and won) because she tried to drive with a cup of hot coffee between her legs and it spilled and scalded her hoo-hoo? Maybe restaurants should give everyone an IQ test before they serve them, since common sense seems to be such a rare commodity! And bars should be equipped to administer sobriety tests, just so they don't make a human error in judgment and over-serve some idiot.

Next, we can take on pharmacies. If my druggist sells me sleeping pills and I kill myself, should he have known, maybe by my history of anti-depressant meds, that I was suicidal? Even better....he refuses to sell me the sleeping pills and I fall asleep at the wheel (because I didn't sleep last night), wiping out an entire family on their way to Disneyworld. Is the pharmacist responsible?

Always go for those deep pockets....Most big corporations will settle out of court just to avoid bad publicity, and every sleazy lawyer in the country knows that. Never mind who's right or wrong, just SHOW ME THE MONEY....that's the American way!

[BJean 16]

P.S. Wheetsin your lawsuit scenario that TOM pooh-poohed is not so far-fetched. Attorneys will sue anybody anytime, and I will defend their right to use the system. We definitely need those checks and balances!

I believe that if somebody wants to hold the bartender accountable, it should be the individual who was served too many drinks and then allowed to walk out the door, keys in hand. The bartender should be sued in a civil court for damages by the drinker if he sustained damages due to the bartender's irresponsible behavior. In that lawsuit, in a court of law, the drinker must prove that the bartender was negligent and the bartender gets his day in court to prove that he was not. That's fair.

But we have too many laws on the books right now that pass the buck down the line. We need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for our own actions!

[BJean 16]

Carlene: I had the hot coffee incident in mind too. But wasn't it her vajayjay that was injured? Her Hoo-Hoo was the little chocholatey cupcake she was going to dunk in the coffee. Oh wait, that's Ho-Ho. My bad.

[Wheetsin 714]

Carlene, I hate that there are no accidents anymore. Sometimes it would be better to say "part my fault" and "part my fault" or "really no one's fault" and leave it at that, but we're so money hungry that it just doesn't really happen that much anymore.

A neighbor of ours (single man) was visiting his mother during the last ice storm. While he was away, two kids were goofing around ont he sidewalk in front of his house. One pushed the other playfully, the pushee slipped on the ice and tried to catch her fall, ending up with a broken arm. The pushee's parents sued our neighbor because the sidewalk is considered his property, for reasons of liability. Then they tried to sue the city because they fail to provide a means of sidewalk ice removal. They were claiming pain & suffering on their child's behalf.

When I was a kid and someone pushed me, and I fell down and broke my arm, it was called an accident, not "easy money".

Once I was walking by a ball field and someone hit a foul ball that went over the fence and got me right in the cheekbone. It knocked me out for a few minutes, and have me ONE HECK of a black eye, three days before senior pictures and prom. It was an accident, and I should have been paying more attention. I certainly didn't sue the person who hit the ball, the person who owned the complex, the company that made the bat, or the company that made the ball.

Once a kid ran his bike into me and, long story short, I ended up needing about 20 stitches in my leg, on the very visible out calf area. My parents talked with the lawyer about a potential lawsuit because the kid ran into me intentionally, and there was speculation that I woud lose mobile function in my leg (a decent amount of muscle had to be removed to get enough skin together, and the bottom inch or so had to be left open because any more removal would have caused "extreme" disfigurement). We didn't sue (and I have a wide but well-faded scar, no permanent disfiguration), nor was the event anything you'd consider an accident.

In my husband's country, if you take someone to court and lose, you're responsible for not just your fees, but all of the defendant's fees too. If your case is determined to be frivilous, there's a pretty hefty fine. They don't see many frivilous or greed-driven lawsuits there.

[BJean 16]

Wheetsin: You make my point, exactly. Now if we both can just learn to DUCK and COVER!

[Wheetsin 714]

Remember the woman who sued McDonald's (and won) because she tried to drive with a cup of hot coffee between her legs and it spilled and scalded her hoo-hoo?

Don't forget the people who played video games for so long that they developed Carpal tunnel (or Nintendo Thumb, I think they dubbed it).

Right around the time we left California, there was a lawsuit started up where a daughter was suing her parents because she was ugly. Her position was that -- Hey, both of my parents are ugly. And I'm ugly. And they knew I'd be ugly because they're both ugly. And because I'm ugly, my life has been unbelievably hard and my quality of life has been cut down to nothing. Therefore, by knowingly brining me into the world destined to be ugly, and knowing the hardships ugly people face, they have committed child abuse.

And don't forget about the catalysts for good samaritan laws (which saved me once, after CPR I performed on someone broke his rib, for which he later tried to sue me). Yeah, you're alive thanks to me, but you're pissy because I cracked a rib saving your life? Next time maybe I'll just stop and stare like everyone else. That's safe, at least. Sue that, you b@stard.

[Boo Boo Kitty 3]

P.S. Wheetsin your lawsuit scenario that TOM pooh-poohed is not so far-fetched. Attorneys will sue anybody anytime, and I will defend their right to use the system. We definitely need those checks and balances!

I believe that if somebody wants to hold the bartender accountable, it should be the individual who was served too many drinks and then allowed to walk out the door, keys in hand. The bartender should be sued in a civil court for damages by the drinker if he sustained damages due to the bartender's irresponsible behavior. In that lawsuit, in a court of law, the drinker must prove that the bartender was negligent and the bartender gets his day in court to prove that he was not. That's fair.

But we have too many laws on the books right now that pass the buck down the line. We need to step up to the plate and take responsibility for our own actions!

OK Bj, I am confused are you saying the bartender SHOULD be held accountable for YOU making a choice, yourself and drinking? What happens to you being responsible for your own actions? Do you KNOW what a bartender makes an hour?? Throw babysitting into it, and there is no point in being one. Most do not make it a habit of serving those we feel are over the limit. But someone can be over their limit and the bartender NOT know it. We would be a very good example of that. We can not drink more than 1 and be over the legal limit almost.

[Wheetsin 714]

I son't know about the bartender thing. Seems like if you're going to hold the bartender accountable for a consequential drunk driving accident, then you have to hold a cigarette vendor accountable for second hand smoke damage. Both enable the unfortunate event to occur, in exchange for money, neither are directly involved with the outcome.