Posted on 11/25/2010 2:57:45 PM PST by Bad~Rodeo
HOUSTON – As in most states, a bar owner can be held liable if a drunken patron injures someone else. But the I-Team discovered how the big liquor lobby pushed through a legal loophole that gets bars around the law, and leaves some Texas families in anguish.
Matthew Garcia was bright and talented, and at 21, too young to die, his family said.
"He would sit at the piano for hours and play," recalled Laurri Garcia of her son’s affection for music. “Life is horrible without Matthew, I miss him incredibly."
But amid his parents' pain, there’s something else.
“Rage,” said his father Kent Garcia.
The rage is directed at David Coleman Wilson, the drunk driver who hit and killed their son in August 2008. But also at the bar which over served him, even though he was already drunk. It’s called Janie’s Bar, and is located in the 19600 block of Kuykendahl in northwest Harris County.
"They didn't stop him, had he had a gun in his hand they would have called the police, but he didn't, he used a car," Laurri Garcia said.
So what did the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission do to Janie’s Bar? Virtually nothing. In fact, the 11 News I-Team has discovered that in Harris County, bars hardly ever get in trouble for serving drunks. After reviewing thousands of TABC administrative actions, we found the TABC cited bars only 22 times for serving drunks, and that’s over five years. But during the same time, the agency wrote up 4,982 other violations against bars, mostly for tax and regulatory issues.
But in the Garcia case, "we thought this was a slam dunk," according to Kent Garcia.
So did the lead TABC agent investigating it.
"They knew he was intoxicated, they continued to serve after becoming intoxicated, and they didn't take any steps after they realized he was intoxicated," said Agent Chuck Cornelius.
By all accounts, it was a solid case, but the result wasn’t.
"Nothing happened to them, they didn't get suspended," said TABC Lt. Harry Schreffler, adding that Janie’s didn’t get fined either.
Why not? Something in Texas law known as Safe Harbor, which is the only law of its kind in the nation. It says if liquor license own
Actually everything in that post was FACTS. Opinion is what you spouted in 5 when you said the bar should have called a cab. The FACTS are that the drinker is responsible for his own actions EXCLUSIVELY.
Unfortunately, we live in a litigious society
I accepted your opinion, now, IMHO the bar should shown a little more responsibility in cutting this guy off and calling him a cab. What’s wrong with that?
The problem is that opinion is based 100% on 3rd hand accounts and assumptions. We don’t know how much the guy drank, we don’t know if he displayed any visible signs of being drunk, we don’t know if he told the bar he was using some method of transportation other than driving himself, we don’t know how big the bar is and how many customers were there and how many employees he interacted with. We have ZERO pertinent information that would indicate the bar had any information to operate on.
But we do know as absolute fact one very important thing: people are responsible for their own action. He’s the one who drank and drove, he’s the one who’s responsible. EXCLUSIVELY. And laws that try to make it otherwise are silly. And people that support those laws are supporting the destruction of freedom and personal responsibility in this country.
Except that this family lost a son
Which is sad but also besides the point and a blatant appeal to emotion fallacy on your part. The logic holds. You and everybody else that supports server liability laws is wrong. The drunk driver is the SOLE responsible party. Unless you can address the LOGIC without resorting to more fallacies I suggest you ask yourself why your position can’t support itself.
You’re right, Happy Thanksgiving, LOL~
This sounds like an even whinier than usual sob sister editorial.
“But *don’t* you *understand*? Unless there is gun control, people will gun down kittens and puppies in the streets and *get* *away* *with* *it*! Can’t you just hear the pitiful cries of the wounded and bleeding puppies as the gun users snatch them from the arms of *innocent* little children, and then when they can’t *stomp* on them with their steel toed boots, they pull out their *cheap*, *disposable* killing gun and savagely shoot puppy after puppy, kitty after kitty, while laughing maniacally! The horror! The outrage! Guns must be outlawed!”
Looking at the drunk driving story objectively, what happened?
Some guy got drunk in a bar and while driving DUI killed someone. It happens all over the US, every single day. And NOWHERE in the US are bars found liable for the drunken driving offenses of their patrons.
So what about Texas. Oh, yeah. They have laws on the books to try and reduce the number of DUI cases. In this case, those extra laws didn’t help.
And the family of the innocent dead person wants to sue somebody. They obviously can’t get any money out of the DUI guy, or the car dealer who sold him the car, or the car maker who made the car that was sold to the dealer and then to the DUI. Nor can they sue the liquor manufacturer.
But gosh darn it, they want MONEY. So they are suing the bar. And that’s not working, either.
Yeah, that about sums it up.
Okay, the BAR is safe; what about the actual server(s) who continued serving him?
Oh; pockets are too shallow.
Never mind.
The perp could have purchased a bottle in a liquor store to achieve the same results.
A regrettable situation, but an impossible responsibility to pass off on the server.
>> the bar should shown a little more responsibility in cutting this guy off and calling him a cab. What’s wrong with that?
The bar only controls the service of alcohol and not the taxi service which the perp could have refused. The bar could, however, call the cops on the intoxicated patron it just served.
Even if the bar cut the guy off, the guy could still be a road liability. Also, someone does not need to be visibly intoxicated to be a risk on the road.
What?!!!! Hold the perpetrator responsible for their own actions? Where's the money in that for the lawyers? personal responsibility ...... isn't that some how connected to the ideals liberty and freedom? Why that's some crazy idea, that. /s
These laws like “suing the bar because they served a drunk driver” are only around for lawyers to get more money from someone or something. Individuals should be held responsible for their actions
If I go to my favorite All You Can Eat Buffett...stuff myself....and cause an accident because I belched or flatulated....should that restaurant be held liable? If I go to a video game place...and my eyes are all bugged out, causing a wreck...should the video game place be sued?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.