PDA

View Full Version : Tiger Woods sued in wrongful death



CWSmith
05-14-2019, 09:09 AM
This brings to the forefront a question I have long wondered: Is the bartender really responsible when a customer has too much to drink? What tools does the bartender have to determine if the customer is drunk? They have the same tools that cops no longer use - look and assess.

I have long thought that blaming the bartender is a cop out. If we drink too much, it is our own fault.

Your mileage may differ...




Tiger Woods and the general manager of Woods’ Florida restaurant face a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the parents of a 24-year-old bartender of the Jupiter establishment.

Nicholas Immesberger had an estimated blood alcohol concentration of 0.28 — more than three times the legal limit — when Immesberger died after his 1999 Chevrolet Corvette left the roadway. The lawsuit filed in Palm Beach County on Monday alleges Immesberger was over-served for about three hours after his shift at The Woods concluded, before the fatal crash.

Immesberger had a history of alcohol abuse, and the lawsuit alleges “Tiger knew, or reasonably should have known, that Immesberger was habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages, and/or was a habitual drunkard.”


While the lawsuit alleges, "Tiger is individually liable in this action because he individually participated in the serving of alcohol," that doesn’t mean Woods served — or was even at The Woods — that day. Woods, under state alcohol laws, potentially could be held liable as an owner of the establishment even if he wasn’t physically at the venue if a foreseeable risk of injury or death occurs due to over-serving.

"The employees and management at The Woods had direct knowledge that Immesberger had a habitual problem with alcohol," the lawsuit read. "In fact, employees and managers knew that Immesberger had attended Alcoholic Anonymous meetings prior to the night of his crash and was attempting to treat his disease. Despite this, the employees and management at The Woods continued to serve Immesberger alcohol while he was working as well as after work, while he sat at the bar."




https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/golf/tiger-woods-faces-wrongful-death-lawsuit-brought-by-parents-of-restaurant-employee/ar-AABjKwu?ocid=spartandhp

Tom Wilkinson
05-14-2019, 09:23 AM
Well, in this case he IS the bartender and that general manager is Tiger's girlfriend. From what I read both Tiger (the owner of the bar) and the general manager (Tiger's GF) knew the guy was an alcoholic. He drank on the job and after.

AlanMc
05-14-2019, 09:34 AM
"i got over-served".... that's a running joke with some friends when they drink too much. it's a joke b/c YOU drank too much, not bc someone gave you too much to drink. sounds like people hitting at the deep pockets for a money grab. they know it was the drunk's fault.

John of Phoenix
05-14-2019, 09:39 AM
How about calling a cab/uber/friend or even a fellow employee just giving him a ride home.

Elsewhere, has anyone examined that 20 yo Corvette for road worthiness.

Bobcat
05-14-2019, 09:40 AM
Usually the drunk doesn't have much money or insurance, so the plaintiff's lawyer looks for another source of money, which turns out to be the bar.

As for the bar's responsibility, most states, if not all, have rules that you can't serve a visibly intoxicated customer. So if the bar does that and the drunk hurts someone later, the bar has some responsibility.

But in the end, it's about the money.

As for Tiger's case, if someone is three times the legal limit, we can agree that he was sloppy drunk.

A bar shouldn't be pouring more for someone on his lips

Tom Wilkinson
05-14-2019, 09:43 AM
It also sounds like he may have been drinking after his shift, which ended at 3 am, at that bar. Is that past last call? Should he even have had access to alcohol at the bar at that point?

Hours of operation show 11am-11pm.
https://thewoods.tigerwoods.com/location/

Paul Pless
05-14-2019, 09:43 AM
it seems a reach naming tiger personally responsible

why is tiger in the restaurant business?

S.V. Airlie
05-14-2019, 09:45 AM
Heard this on NPR. If nothing else, the manager or Tiger Woods should hav e taken his keys away from him. Apparently, from NPR they didn't and he drove away in HIS car.

TomF
05-14-2019, 10:03 AM
I'm sorry, but if I'm a self-confessed alcoholic, have actually attended AA meetings in the prior year, yet still choose to work as a bartender ... Well, it isn't the bar's owner who is responsible for my drunken car crash. It might not be an entirely wise business choice to employ an actively drinking alcoholic as a bartender, though it wasn't exactly uncommon back when I worked in the restaurant trade.

Tom Wilkinson
05-14-2019, 10:14 AM
I'm sorry, but if I'm a self-confessed alcoholic, have actually attended AA meetings in the prior year, yet still choose to work as a bartender ... Well, it isn't the bar's owner who is responsible for my drunken car crash. It might not be an entirely wise business choice to employ an actively drinking alcoholic as a bartender, though it wasn't exactly uncommon back when I worked in the restaurant trade.

Should they still be serving anyone well after closing hours?

S.V. Airlie
05-14-2019, 10:15 AM
I'm sorry, but if I'm a self-confessed alcoholic, have actually attended AA meetings in the prior year, yet still choose to work as a bartender ... Well, it isn't the bar's owner who is responsible for my drunken car crash. It might not be an entirely wise business choice to employ an actively drinking alcoholic as a bartender, though it wasn't exactly uncommon back when I worked in the restaurant trade.I think it is in this case, it's not bar owner it was Manager. I have a difference between the responsibility of those two positions.

I too have worked as a bar tender and short order cook. My manage? checked in weekly,; certainly not often. As a bar tender, I cut anyone off or took away his car keys if he became under the weather so to speak.

TomF
05-14-2019, 10:16 AM
No. And likely the bartender ought to be fired for that. In various provinces in Canada, serving folks alcohol well after closing hours would put the bar's liquor license at risk.

Tom Wilkinson
05-14-2019, 10:18 AM
No. And likely the bartender ought to be fired for that. In various provinces in Canada, serving folks alcohol well after closing hours would put the bar's liquor license at risk.

But he was also an employee of the bar. So was he serving himself? Did the manager allow it?

Seems there are many questions that need to be answered before any kind of judgement could be made, but it seems like there certainly could be some culpability on the bars behalf.

This bar close to me was shut down after they lost a lawsuit over serving someone underage and she killed someone. Is the bar not responsible for the actions of their employees. They set/enforce the rules.
https://www.law.com/dailyreportonline/2018/07/19/strip-club-hit-with-27m-verdict-in-dram-shop-suit-over-fatal-wreck/?slreturn=20190414111938

S.V. Airlie
05-14-2019, 10:19 AM
No. And likely the bartender ought to be fired for that. In various provinces in Canada, serving folks alcohol well after closing hours would put the bar's liquor license at risk.I think that's common practice here but, rarely exercised unless someone dies in an accident. Then, the boon drops.

Jim Bow
05-14-2019, 10:31 AM
Friends ran a bike store in Seattle. A bike they sold had a front axle break 10 years after they sold it. The rider suffered brain damage.
They were part of a lawsuit that included the manufacturer, the dept of transportation, and the EMTs who responded to the accident.

It's like the lawyers throw a net and then go see what they caught.

AlanMc
05-14-2019, 10:40 AM
Friends ran a bike store in Seattle. A bike they sold had a front axle break 10 years after they sold it. The rider suffered brain damage.
They were part of a lawsuit that included the manufacturer, the dept of transportation, and the EMTs who responded to the accident.

It's like the lawyers throw a net and then go see what they caught.


we got sued over a house where they didn't put the right air gap on the exterior brick. we don't even sell brick.

CWSmith
05-14-2019, 10:48 AM
This bar close to me was shut down after they lost a lawsuit over serving someone underage and she killed someone.

That really is a different matter. There is an age limit to drinking because it is assumed that below a certain age people cannot make good (responsible) decisions. For adults to blame their drinking on someone who poured the drink seems like a blame game to me.

Bobcat
05-14-2019, 10:53 AM
Friends ran a bike store in Seattle. A bike they sold had a front axle break 10 years after they sold it. The rider suffered brain damage.
They were part of a lawsuit that included the manufacturer, the dept of transportation, and the EMTs who responded to the accident.

It's like the lawyers throw a net and then go see what they caught.

Exactly and the law in Washington state strongly encourages suing any party that might be responsible.

I had a case where some stopped on an icy overpass, got hit, and sued the 25 drivers behind him.

TomF
05-14-2019, 10:57 AM
I dunno, guess I'll modify my original opinion a bit.

As I think about addiction dynamics, addicts in the throes feel very little control over their behaviour. True of alcoholics, folks dependent on other drugs, etc. etc. If personal change were easy, we'd all be perfect, eh?

As I mentioned here before, last November my S-I-L died from fentanyl use. Like most addicts she had a torturous relationship with substances, and hence with relationships, with guilt, etc. etc. But Vicki didn't die because her relationships were crap, or she was hugely in debt, or even because of her nasty childhood. She didn't die because a supplier sold her drugs either. Vicki died because she kept putting a needle in her arm, even though she knew the risks. Knew people who'd died, and had nearly died at least once before. I think that Vicki's tragedy was in part that she would not make tiny incremental choices to remove herself from situations where she'd use. Put her in a room with the drugs and gear, and she was pretty powerless to resist the craving ... and like every addict I've met, she knew it.

So if a person really wants to get and stay clean, one crucial part of it is taking positive action to clear up their environment. It isn't "sufficient," but it is "necessary." Vicki didn't - wouldn't. Neither did the guy in the OP, who was a self-described alcoholic who kept himself in an environment where his substance would be available. Should the bar owner be accountable for enabling? Probably - just like the guys who sold Vicki fentanyl. But these are secondary factors in the deaths, not the primary ones.

Tom Montgomery
05-14-2019, 11:03 AM
Given the law, a bartender who continues to serve drinks to a customer who is obviously impaired is a fool.

Tom Wilkinson
05-14-2019, 11:07 AM
That really is a different matter. There is an age limit to drinking because it is assumed that below a certain age people cannot make good (responsible) decisions. For adults to blame their drinking on someone who poured the drink seems like a blame game to me.

Even when the bar is closed??

Joe (SoCal)
05-14-2019, 11:22 AM
Years and years of working behind the stick, I was grilled on over pourning. The problem is 2 fold,
#1 Professional drunks have a unique ability to hold it together just long enough to act sober to order just one more drink.
#2 You can never tell where the customer was drinking before he came to you for one for the road. Also, some drink in the car, some drink at home and then go back out, but that crumpled receipt in their wallet puts them at your bar.

Trust me no server would ever serve a belligerent falling down drunk, but you work at a 4 deep full bar during a rush and you have to take orders, mix drinks, make chit chat, give checks and make change, all the wile spotting that one patron who just had his over the limit jager shot bought by his best friend.

S.V. Airlie
05-14-2019, 11:27 AM
Years and years of working behind the stick, I was grilled on over pourning. The problem is 2 fold,
#1 Professional drunks have a unique ability to hold it together just long enough to act sober to order just one more drink.
#2 You can never tell where the customer was drinking before he came to you for one for the road. Also, some drink in the car, some drink at home and then go back out, but that crumpled receipt in their wallet puts them at your bar.Technically, I'd agree with you especially having a drink in the car. Where I worked though, there wasn't another bar in oh say, twenty five miles from where I worked. It was the watering hole for at least 25 miles. There wad one in PAS but, my folks were shall, I say, very local. It was Appilachia for Gods sake. Made better "stuff" at home.

It was the wild, wild west with the usual gun fights etc. I used to hum, "Bad, bad Leroy Brown when I battened and NOT being short order cook. My fav. to a patron was, after grabbing me by the shirt, saying one of these days I'm gonna "gut" shoot you!

I usually showed up at work in my union: Dept. of Nat. Resources on the sleeve. Luckily, they liked my cooking.

Tom Wilkinson
05-14-2019, 11:30 AM
Years and years of working behind the stick, I was grilled on over pourning. The problem is 2 fold,
#1 Professional drunks have a unique ability to hold it together just long enough to act sober to order just one more drink.
#2 You can never tell where the customer was drinking before he came to you for one for the road. Also, some drink in the car, some drink at home and then go back out, but that crumpled receipt in their wallet puts them at your bar.

Trust me no server would ever serve a belligerent falling down drunk, but you work at a 4 deep full bar during a rush and you have to take orders, mix drinks, make chit chat, give checks and make change, all the wile spotting that one patron who just had his over the limit jager shot bought by his best friend.

They knew and worked with the guy, he was apparently still at the bar drinking until 4 hours after their posted closing time. (assuming the article is correct about 3 AM.)

Joe (SoCal)
05-14-2019, 11:33 AM
With the advent of Über & Lyft there almost no need to get a DWI or worse. Although logical impairment and self reliance independence can obliterate logic when you are drunk.

I never under stood the pub / bar / restaurant in the middle of no where with a huge parking-lot. What do you expect ?

Joe (SoCal)
05-14-2019, 11:37 AM
They knew and worked with the guy, he was apparently still at the bar drinking until 4 hours after their posted closing time. (assuming the article is correct about 3 AM.)

Yea, sadly that kinda stuff happens. Even sadder it's usually the staff that participates with the doors closed.
Although, one of my all-time favorite experience was going with Anthony Bourdain and some back of the house guys to a closed east village bistro and drinking and cooking until dawn. Then again this was NYC in the 90's and cabs or stumbling to the subway was the option of choice.

S.V. Airlie
05-14-2019, 11:38 AM
They knew and worked with the guy, he was apparently still at the bar drinking until 4 hours after their posted closing time. (assuming the article is correct about 3 AM.)Tom, people drinking after closing time was the norm. No one who left after closing wouldn't be let back in. Not my decision personally but, that rule seems to have been around a long time. Oh, I stopped serving/making food at 10pm though.

Tom Wilkinson
05-14-2019, 11:42 AM
Tom, people drinking after closing time was the norm. No one who left after closing wouldn't be let back in. Not my decision personally but, that rule seems to have been around a long time. Oh, I stopped serving/making food at 10pm though.

I'm sure it is the norm. That doesn't make it ok, or legal, and could open the bar up to some liability.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but the bar sure seems like they were engaging in some risky practices.

S.V. Airlie
05-14-2019, 11:47 AM
I'm sure it is the norm. That doesn't make it ok, or legal, and could open the bar up to some liability.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but the bar sure seems like they were engaging in some risky practices.Oh, I agree there but, you try to work in Appilicacha Tom. That region has it's own rules. What happens there would NOT happen in say Baltimore or even NYC.

TomF
05-14-2019, 11:48 AM
Yeah, but not uncommon ones. Couple of places I worked could have been that one, from time to time. It was kinda part of the restaurant culture, in some types of places at least. Maybe still is.

genglandoh
05-14-2019, 11:53 AM
Since the bar/restaurant has some responsibility to not allow people to over drink.
I think the bar/restaurant should NOT allow any employee to drink during working hours.
After they are off work they are just another customer and the rules should apply.

Joe (SoCal)
05-14-2019, 11:58 AM
I'm sure it is the norm. That doesn't make it ok, or legal, and could open the bar up to some liability.

I'm playing devil's advocate a bit, but the bar sure seems like they were engaging in some risky practices.

Tom, no offense you want a "Rules" bar with electronic ounce pourers, operational manuals, and lots of servers wearing "Flare", hang out at airport bars and applebees. If you wan't that place where everyone knows your name and the server knows your drink and maybe they bend the rules they are FUN places. It's a fine balance because anyone can eat and drink at home so why does anyone go out ? They go because it's a an opportunity to live life, maybe something fun like drinking till dawn Anthony Bourdain a seedy locked basement bistro in the east village.

Sorry but the "business" has always had an element of "bend the rules" Think about bartenders, servers, kitchen staff these are people that are not looking for 9-5, or 8:00 am rah rah, whats your projections for the month sales meetings. These are rebels, near-do-wells, pirates, actors, musicians or people who just can't work anyplace else. These become like brothers and sisters in arms, that have your back when you are in the weeds and who you drink, and share your life with. Also there is no HR office everyone is hooking up and sexual harassment is nonexistent. Yea it's dangerous but so is running with sharp knifes, playing with fire & alcohol ;)

Tom Wilkinson
05-14-2019, 12:30 PM
Tom, no offense you want a "Rules" bar with electronic ounce pourers, operational manuals, and lots of servers wearing "Flare", hang out at airport bars and applebees. If you wan't that place where everyone knows your name and the server knows your drink and maybe they bend the rules they are FUN places. It's a fine balance because anyone can eat and drink at home so why does anyone go out ? They go because it's a an opportunity to live life, maybe something fun like drinking till dawn Anthony Bourdain a seedy locked basement bistro in the east village.

Sorry but the "business" has always had an element of "bend the rules" Think about bartenders, servers, kitchen staff these are people that are not looking for 9-5, or 8:00 am rah rah, whats your projections for the month sales meetings. These are rebels, near-do-wells, pirates, actors, musicians or people who just can't work anyplace else. These become like brothers and sisters in arms, that have your back when you are in the weeds and who you drink, and share your life with. Also there is no HR office everyone is hooking up and sexual harassment is nonexistent. Yea it's dangerous but so is running with sharp knifes, playing with fire & alcohol ;)

I don't want that. I don't really care. I'm just saying that the bar is taking a risk by engaging in that behavior and may be held liable. The laws don't really care about what "elements" that type of business has always had. You are making the case for the plaintiff.

John of Phoenix
05-14-2019, 12:31 PM
On a related subject, we had an office party where one of the guys got pretty wasted and died when he crashed his Vette into a power pole. The host was worried that he could be held liable for the same reason as above. I've heard that occasionally private individuals have been sued in similar cases.

Nothing came of it but from then on office parties were held at restaurants. Not a bad idea.

CWSmith
05-14-2019, 01:57 PM
Even when the bar is closed??

Yes. That has no bearing on personal responsibility.

CWSmith
05-14-2019, 01:59 PM
You can never tell where the customer was drinking before he came to you for one for the road.

This is the source of the problem. If bartenders are not given the tools to judge sobriety, how can they be held accountable? "He looked sober." isn't a defense, but that's all we give the server to work with.

Bobcat
05-14-2019, 02:29 PM
This is the source of the problem. If bartenders are not given the tools to judge sobriety, how can they be held accountable? "He looked sober." isn't a defense, but that's all we give the server to work with.

The key is "obviously intoxicated" and that standard is based on what a person sees. So "he looked sober" is indeed a defense. Provided that a reasonable person look at the drunk would think he was sober

Garret
05-14-2019, 02:33 PM
Years and years of working behind the stick, I was grilled on over pourning. The problem is 2 fold,
#1 Professional drunks have a unique ability to hold it together just long enough to act sober to order just one more drink.
#2 You can never tell where the customer was drinking before he came to you for one for the road. Also, some drink in the car, some drink at home and then go back out, but that crumpled receipt in their wallet puts them at your bar.

Trust me no server would ever serve a belligerent falling down drunk, but you work at a 4 deep full bar during a rush and you have to take orders, mix drinks, make chit chat, give checks and make change, all the wile spotting that one patron who just had his over the limit jager shot bought by his best friend.

This. Not years & years for me, but a couple. Anyone who says they can spot someone over the limit 100% of the time is a liar. Anyone who can spot even someone who is obviously drunk when working "at a 4 deep full bar during a rush and you have to take orders, mix drinks, make chit chat, give checks and make change" is obviously a superhero.

Suing the bartender is total BS. Does anyone remember a concept (outdated I know) called personal responsibility?

Bobcat
05-14-2019, 02:35 PM
This. Not years & years for me, but a couple. Anyone who says they can spot someone over the limit 100% of the time is a liar. Anyone who can spot even someone who is obviously drunk when working "at a 4 deep full bar during a rush and you have to take orders, mix drinks, make chit chat, give checks and make change" is obviously a superhero.

Suing the bartender is total BS. Does anyone remember a concept (outdated I know) called personal responsibility?

Personal responsibility has been replaced by the search for deep pockets

CWSmith
05-14-2019, 03:01 PM
The key is "obviously intoxicated" and that standard is based on what a person sees. So "he looked sober" is indeed a defense. Provided that a reasonable person look at the drunk would think he was sober

As stated above, an advanced drunk can look quite sober and be legally intoxicated and a danger on the road.

In this case, I gather there was an accident on the road and now the bar owners are being sued. Maybe it goes nowhere, maybe it goes somewhere. The responsibility placed on the bar owner is disproportionate to the tools he has to judge sobriety.

Bobcat
05-14-2019, 03:07 PM
As stated above, an advanced drunk can look quite sober and be legally intoxicated and a danger on the road.

In this case, I gather there was an accident on the road and now the bar owners are being sued. Maybe it goes nowhere, maybe it goes somewhere. The responsibility placed on the bar owner is disproportionate to the tools he has to judge sobriety.

I think you're missing the point. The liability for the bar is not that someone was drunk, but it's that the bar failed to live up to its duty of not serving someone obviously intoxicated. It doesn't mean the bar guarantees it will never serve a drunk. It means that the bar will take reasonable steps so it upholds the law and doesn't serve obviously intoxicated people.

If a drunk looks and acts sober, the bar is not liable for serving him or her.

AlanMc
05-14-2019, 03:09 PM
As stated above, an advanced drunk can look quite sober and be legally intoxicated and a danger on the road.

In this case, I gather there was an accident on the road and now the bar owners are being sued. Maybe it goes nowhere, maybe it goes somewhere. The responsibility placed on the bar owner is disproportionate to the tools he has to judge sobriety.


reminds me of when we banned breathalyzer machines to check your sobriety in bars. why? b/c kids were seeing how high they could make it go.

Garret
05-14-2019, 03:15 PM
I think you're missing the point. The liability for the bar is not that someone was drunk, but it's that the bar failed to live up to its duty of not serving someone obviously intoxicated. It doesn't mean the bar guarantees it will never serve a drunk. It means that the bar will take reasonable steps so it upholds the law and doesn't serve obviously intoxicated people.

If a drunk looks and acts sober, the bar is not liable for serving him or her.

But that's not the case. A high powered attorney gets a hold of a 23 YO bartender & makes mincemeat of him/her. Holding a bar responsible for something a person does to him/her self is wrong. Is a casino held liable if a person gambles away all his money & his family ends up homeless?

Bobcat
05-14-2019, 03:27 PM
Let me pose a question to you: suppose the drunk injures someone else. The drunk has no money. The bar did not follow the law and served the drunk when it was obvious he was drunk. Should the bar compensate the injured person? It is that wrong? Remember the injured party is innocent

Garret
05-14-2019, 03:30 PM
Let me pose a question to you: suppose the drunk injures someone else. The drunk has no money. The bar did not follow the law and served the drunk when it was obvious he was drunk. Should the bar compensate the injured person? It is that wrong? Remember the injured party is innocent

Nope. Now if you were to require that a person take a breathalyzer before ordering a drink, then yes. Otherwise - a bartender cannot tell. As mentioned above, some people are really good at hiding their inebriation. No one can legally define the term "obviously drunk".

Bobcat
05-14-2019, 03:39 PM
Here's the way Washington State instructs juries on the issue. So, yes, you can define "obviously intoxicated" and courts do routinely:

WPI 370.02 Furnishing Alcohol—Obviously Intoxicated Person—Definition



A person is obviously intoxicated if the person's appearance and behavior would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the person is certainly or unmistakably intoxicated. [Intoxication means an alcohol-induced impairment of a person's mental and bodily condition.]

Whether a person was obviously intoxicated or not is to be determined by the person's appearance to others at the time the alcohol was [sold] [served] [furnished] to the person. [The appearance of a person a short period of time after the person was [sold] [served] [furnished] alcohol may be considered by you in determining whether the person was [sold] [served] [furnished] alcohol while obviously intoxicated.

[Evidence of the amount of alcohol consumed or evidence of blood alcohol content may be considered by you, along with other evidence, in determining whether the person was [sold] [served] [furnished] alcohol while apparently under the influence of alcohol. [However, neither evidence of the amount of alcohol consumed, nor evidence of the person's blood alcohol level, is sufficient by itself to establish that the person was [sold] [served] [furnished] alcohol while obviously intoxicated.]]

Phil Y
05-14-2019, 03:54 PM
I'm surprised at the debate. This must be well settled law by now.

Sent from my CPH1851 using Tapatalk

Garret
05-14-2019, 03:56 PM
Here's the way Washington State instructs juries on the issue. So, yes, you can define "obviously intoxicated" and courts do routinely:

WPI 370.02 Furnishing Alcohol—Obviously Intoxicated Person—Definition



A person is obviously intoxicated if the person's appearance and behavior would lead a reasonable observer to conclude that the person is certainly or unmistakably intoxicated. [Intoxication means an alcohol-induced impairment of a person's mental and bodily condition.]

Whether a person was obviously intoxicated or not is to be determined by the person's appearance to others at the time the alcohol was [sold] [served] [furnished] to the person. [The appearance of a person a short period of time after the person was [sold] [served] [furnished] alcohol may be considered by you in determining whether the person was [sold] [served] [furnished] alcohol while obviously intoxicated.

[Evidence of the amount of alcohol consumed or evidence of blood alcohol content may be considered by you, along with other evidence, in determining whether the person was [sold] [served] [furnished] alcohol while apparently under the influence of alcohol. [However, neither evidence of the amount of alcohol consumed, nor evidence of the person's blood alcohol level, is sufficient by itself to establish that the person was [sold] [served] [furnished] alcohol while obviously intoxicated.]]

That's basically defining a term with itself. merely changing "obviously" to "certainly or unmistakably". My elementary school teachers wouldn't allow that.

But - I defy you to pick an "obviously intoxicated" person out 100% of the time. Sure - if a guy is slurring & falling down - easy. What about the alcoholic who has years of hiding it? What about a friend getting a drink for a friend? What about someone standing behind 3 other people & basically supported by the press of bodies?

I'd love it if there were a way that was fair - but there isn't. At least I haven't seen one.

Bobcat
05-14-2019, 04:02 PM
That's basically defining a term with itself. merely changing "obviously" to "certainly or unmistakably". My elementary school teachers wouldn't allow that.

But - I defy you to pick an "obviously intoxicated" person out 100% of the time. Sure - if a guy is slurring & falling down - easy. What about the alcoholic who has years of hiding it? What about a friend getting a drink for a friend? What about someone standing behind 3 other people & basically supported by the press of bodies?

I'd love it if there were a way that was fair - but there isn't. At least I haven't seen one.

Nobody is saying that a bar has to be 100 percent right all the time. That's way the standard is that of a "reasonable observer"

The law is not black and white. That's why we have juries as factfinders

JayInOz
05-14-2019, 04:08 PM
Can't Captain Bonespurs just pardon him or something? JayInOz

peb
05-14-2019, 05:13 PM
Years and years of working behind the stick, I was grilled on over pourning. The problem is 2 fold,
#1 Professional drunks have a unique ability to hold it together just long enough to act sober to order just one more drink.
#2 You can never tell where the customer was drinking before he came to you for one for the road. Also, some drink in the car, some drink at home and then go back out, but that crumpled receipt in their wallet puts them at your bar.

Trust me no server would ever serve a belligerent falling down drunk, but you work at a 4 deep full bar during a rush and you have to take orders, mix drinks, make chit chat, give checks and make change, all the wile spotting that one patron who just had his over the limit jager shot bought by his best friend.

This. I have known alcoholics who could drink an unbelievable amount and still act as if they were no more than a little tipsy. I do not say that no establishment is ever liable for the what a person who drank at their bar does, and I do not judge this particular case, but the burden of proof should be relatively high. I am no big Tigetr Woods fan, but I tend to side with the restaurant in these cases until someone makes it clear that they were negligent in their behavior.

CWSmith
05-14-2019, 05:33 PM
I think you're missing the point.

I'm not missing it. Your point is obvious. The judgement by the jury will be as subjective as the decision that must be made by the bartender. The law places the bartender in significant jeopardy and without an objective defense.

CWSmith
05-14-2019, 05:35 PM
Let me pose a question to you: suppose the drunk injures someone else. The drunk has no money. The bar did not follow the law and served the drunk when it was obvious he was drunk. Should the bar compensate the injured person? It is that wrong? Remember the injured party is innocent

With this, I will move on to other commenters. This is precisely what is wrong with the court system.

Bobcat
05-14-2019, 05:54 PM
I'm not missing it. Your point is obvious. The judgement by the jury will be as subjective as the decision that must be made by the bartender. The law places the bartender in significant jeopardy and without an objective defense.

Don't you think that any judgment by a jury on any issue is subjective?

If you think things at a jury trial are cut and dried or "objective" you haven't been paying attention. The facts are what the 12 people in the box say they are. We hope their conclusions are based on evidence, but it's up to them.