Posted on 12/12/2004 7:33:21 AM PST by XXXXX88XXXXX
"Yea, cars should also have some way to test...anything else that may affect your driving. /sarcasm"
Love your sarcasm, Swanky. I saw one thing that worked though - I lived in Northern Ireland for 3 yrs '78-'81 and the limit was 0.08 there then. A fellow I knew walked out of the pub one evening to his car in the parking lot with his car keys in his hand. As he approached the car and put his hand on it to open with his key, the police arrested him for DUI - that was all that was necessary there to be stopped. Drunk-incharge was all that was needed, he did not have to be driving. Some of us learned early on to have DD's around for the trip home.
If the individual isn't staggering drunk how can a bartender be expected to evaluate the degree of intoxication if the individual had arrived late or not consumed a few drinks in their presence?
While the way a person is one of the easiest ways to a drunk person it is not the only one. If you have seen as many drunks as a bartender you would know the their eye's,speech and mannerism are good signs also. If I suspected someone was too drunk to serve I would first tell them I thought they had enough. If they challenged me on it the final decision was made by the manager who observed them after being alerted by me.
Does the bartender have to monitor every patron, prior to serving, to establish if they are driving or arrived by cab or bus or afoot?
Usually, it is apparent to a good waitress or bartender that someone has been drinking prior,again the eyes, speech and mannerism come in to play. They are fooling themselves if they think they aren't being watched.
Does a walking drinker get served more drinks than a driving drinker.
While we like to see our patrons have fun we never like to see anyone get drunk even walkers.
A bartender just serves alcohol as a job. They are not psychologists or counselors or whatever. Just because a person was placed at a particular location does not establish behavioral evaluation.
Wrong, many bartenders take pride in their job just like everyone else. We feel responsible for our employers and our patrons. We become confidants to many who have no one else to talk to and behavior monitoring comes naturally.
A busy bartender serves multiple patrons and has no way of knowing how many drinks were consumed (if any) prior to a patrons arrival.
Well, you could be kidding yourself here because before I retired 2 years ago it had already been established that waitress ticket given to a bartender had amount of people sitting at the table and any suspected prior drinker had his/her number seat circled. One drink was served but before it was finished the bar crew had decided if they would be allowed to finish it or served another, or ask to leave. As far as drinks consumed at the table or the bar, the drink was printed on the ticket with the chair number the customer was sitting at.
Gotta love them computers!
I know many people that can drink a gallon of whiskey in less than an hour and still walk a straight line and act totally normal.
Already happening. My father once owned a lakeside resort/party store. On advise of his attorney, he quit giving out matchbooks with the store logo because they sold beer, wine and liquour. Seems the lawyer was representing a party store owner involved in just such a lawsuit over a drunk driver. No evidence they had even sold him beer, just the matchbook in the guy's car made the store culpable. Just Damn!!!!!!!
No kidding.
Most of the bars around here have tightened up on serving drunks in the last few years. It seems to be working. While the fine is heavy, the loss of the license really hurts – even if only for a month.
The loss of license really does hurt. I rarely go out at night anymore, so don't encounter too many situations where bartenders have to make the call about continuing to serve someone or not.
It seems Michigan does not require the same burden of prrof as "obviously" drunk. It just makes me wonder how far this will go before someone says "What are you supposed to do if they do not appear or act drunk?" Will most bars just stop serving alcohol at all for fear of these kind of lawsuits?
A toxicologist for the plaintiffs stated in depositions Breton drank up to 25 drinks, and that would have affected his central nervous system. He would have shown visible signs of drunkenness, the doctor said. "The standard to rebut the presumption is the presentation of competent and credible evidence that it was more probable than not that Mr. Breton was visibly intoxicated when he was served at defendant's bar," the appeals court ruled.
I believe the people who saw him said he did not appear drunk. Does this mean any tests run can determine how a person acts? I am going to be watching this case because I am very interested in the outcome. It will open the door for many "similar" lawsuits that are based on "the test say X, so Y is the only outcome, and to he!! with what really happened".
I’m usually home by 2 PM – safer and cheaper. I have seen patrons come in at lunch and have the day bartender pass on their thanks for cutting them off the night before.
A toxicologist for the plaintiffs stated in depositions Breton drank up to 25 drinks, and that would have affected his central nervous system. He would have shown visible signs of drunkenness, the doctor said.
It will open the door for many "similar" lawsuits that are based on "the test say X, so Y is the only outcome, and to he!! with what really happened".
My husband and I go out for lunch and a couple of beers on Friday's, we leave the house no earlier than noon and always leave the establishment no later than 3. Considering there is a 20 mile drive each way from home to any of our preferred stablishments, we don't spend all that much time "drinking."
As much as I enjoy the bar at the Moose Lodge, I won't be drinking anything stronger than Sprite when I'm there tonight for a meeting. I don't like driving at night to begin with, and I will not drive on the highway at night even after having one beer.
That’s about my attitude too. I do enjoy one Budweiser and one or two Sam Adam’s drafts at the Junction. I usually get there between 10 and 11 AM, and stay through lunch. If the conversation is good I’ll stay until mid afternoon.
The streets around here are bad enough without adding to the hazard by driving at night with the maniacs.
There was a time, when I was very much younger, that I could sit at the bar all afternoon drinking beer and not even think about getting in the car and going home. Those days are LONG over.
And I was drinking Coca-Cola, not Sprite at the Lodge tonight - which is why I am sitting here, typing away and not sound asleep!!!!
Yep! There was a time, when I was very much younger – and a whole lot dumber! When I think about some of the things I did back in the Bad Ole Daze …
I suspect the whereabouts and wanderings of the dead drunk were probably only discovered after the fact. Bartenders are not expected to be a Detective Joe Friday and interrogate patrons as to their whereabouts before the crime.
Sounds like you worked at a one of a kind upscale establishment. Most bars/resteraunts/clubs do not have computer ticketing.
Reliable indicators you mention are not always reliable.
Establishing servability on a new, previously unknown patron based upon behavioral evaluations is too simplistic by your description. I would suspect the establishment you worked at also sold food so liquor sales were not the primary profit motive. Most people consume one drink with a meal I would suspect, since I too am an average patron. I consider a fancy cocktail with a meal outragously overpriced so as to be a deterrant to drinking more than one drink. That is one subtle way of controlling patrons so as to not become too intoxicated. They just move on to a neighborhood establishment to carry on.
But if you served the patron their first drink, you could be considered the one who lit the fuse that set off the chain of events, no matter how careful your establishment is. That makes your one drink establishment just as liable as the last drink establishment under the pretenses of liability.
It is just a matter of time before brewers and distillers and retailers/wholesalers are included under the blanket of liability since they have the deepest pockets.
Personal responsibility is not about responsibility any more. It is about passing the blame around and enriching lawyers.
You are exactly right about the "chain of events" as this is the precedent setting case for Michigan of exactly that. The "victory" here was to get a judge to agree that everyone is liable.
The advantage of this is to the lawyer which will make the multiple establishments want to setle quickly to minimize exposure. A million fron three establishments has is better to collect than three million from one.
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.