Ship of Fools: Who is responsible for your behaviour? "contributory negligence"

Thread: Who is responsible for your behaviour? "contributory negligence" Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020237

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

So someone goes out for the evening, drinks, then drives. They hit another vehicle, their fault. People are killed. The courts find the driver guilty of impaired driving causing death and off to jail. The insurance company then sues the taverns/pubs which served the liquor saying they should have stopped the driver from drinking. Link.

I get that responsible and reasonable people try to look out for other people, that it is a great idea to reduce harm, and that in this specific case there is great harm. But does this go a bit far? How much should a person do? Call police, wrestle keys from a person, what? And should it be a matter for lawsuits, lawyers and courts.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It goes a bit far. It's not the job of bar staff to check who is driving and who is not.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

It is because there is no point in suing the driver, who is probably some kid. A tavern or hotel or bar has assets, probably insurance -- assets to pursue.
I have run an event in the city of Baltimore, where hotels are bound by city law to only serve alcohol in their own bars. You can't have a party and serve booze in your rooms; you have to hire the hotel staff to run the bar. This is because someone had a room party many years ago, and a city councilman's daughter attended and got drunk. So he had the law passed, and now Baltimore is a difficult town to party in.
Another place where we are very careful is at the church. The altar wine (real wine, not grape juice) is kept under lock and key. Admittedly you would be a desperate alcoholic if you were willing to get drunk on this sweet flat stuff. But if you did, and then drove out into the highway and got killed, the church would be on the hook for the liability.

Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on :

It is the responsibility of the bar in most Canadian jurisdictions not to serve the patron to the point of intoxication. This has been the case for at least the last 20+ years.

Posted by que sais-je (# 17185) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It goes a bit far. It's not the job of bar staff to check who is driving and who is not.

There is a legal concept called (I think) "residual duty of care". Once I was responsible for about 200 students doing industrial placements (sandwich years). Each student had to be visited by a tutor. Suppose we found a student in a potentially dangerous work situation, would we be responsible if anything when wrong? The legal department informed me that if tutors hadn't received health and safety training we weren't responsible, if they had, we were. Their recommendation was to only use tutors who hadn't had training!

Fortunately all our students got back safely, though one got mugged in Indiana, Pennsylvania.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Brenda:

quote:
It is because there is no point in suing the driver, who is probably some kid. A tavern or hotel or bar has assets, probably insurance -- assets to pursue.

Good grief, and I thought British lawyers were cynical.

I think anyone trying to bring a case like this in England or Scotland would be laughed out of court, but IANAL (I daresay there will be one along in a minute if I'm wrong). Having said that, bar staff *do* have the right to refuse to serve someone and some will do this if they think you've had too much to drink.

It doesn't seem fair on the bar owner - people can be over the legal limit for driving without actually appearing to be drunk. And most people's driving skills deteriorate well before they have had their legal limit of drinks. And the responsibility for the crash lies with the driver who caused it, unless somebody held a gun to her head and forced her to get drunk before climbing behind the wheel (not impossible in America, I suppose...).

Drink driving is considered extremely irresponsible on this side of the pond, but it was not always so. The culture changed as a result of anti-drink-driving campaigns .

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by que sais-je:
There is a legal concept called (I think) "residual duty of care".

But with students it's a whole 'nother ball of wax. Adults in charge of working with students are working in loco parentis. A bartender does not stand in an in loco parentis relationship to his/her clientele.

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
A bartender does not stand in an in loco parentis relationship to his/her clientele.

Many US states (and I think some other common law jurisdictions) have passed dram shop liability acts, which impose liability on bars or liquor stores who serve visibly intoxicated individuals. So while it is true that they do not stand in loco parentis, they still have a statutorily imposed duty.

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Good grief, and I thought British lawyers were cynical.

The big group that pushes for these kinds of laws in the United States Mothers Against Drunk Driving ("MADD"), a group of mothers of people who were killed in drunk driving accidents, who push for stricter laws (including also lower per se blood alcohol limits) across the country.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Og, King of Bashan:
So while it is true that they do not stand in loco parentis, they still have a statutorily imposed duty.

That is true in Washington State (where the mousehold reside).

quote:
The big group that pushes for these kinds of laws in the United States Mothers Against Drunk Driving ("MADD"), a group of mothers of people who were killed in drunk driving accidents, who push for stricter laws (including also lower per se blood alcohol limits) across the country.

How I wish we had a Mothers Against Mass Shootings. Something might get done.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

You're probably going to see it on your side of the pond too. The Grenfell fire? Who is going to get sued for that? Somebody with assets, probably the corporation in charge. But if they declare bankruptcy (a well-known ploy that dates back to Victorian times) the makers of the cladding might find themselves in the dock, even the government entity that approved the renovations.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Og:

quote:
The big group that pushes for these kinds of laws in the United States Mothers Against Drunk Driving ("MADD"), a group of mothers of people who were killed in drunk driving accidents

Well, I can see where they're coming from, but I still think it imposes an unfair burden on the bar owner. It would be nice if we could reduce the number of deaths due to drunk driving to zero, but this is unlikely to happen. Changing the culture and making it socially unacceptable to drink and drive is the best we can do, short of having someone in every pub car-park waiting to arrest anyone who's had a drink in the last couple of hours.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

[tangent]
There is a general problem with lawsuits. Once sued for anything, you need to file papers to defend against it, and they give only 20 days if within province (30 if outside but in Canada). That's the first $2-5000 spent. Winning a lawsuit, even if it never gets to court is quite a bit more than that. You can get "costs" after you win the suit, which are fake-costs, one must multiply by 20-50 times to real costs to defend a lawsuit.
[/tangent]

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

quote:
How I wish we had a Mothers Against Mass Shootings. Something might get done.

We do have such a group.

Moms Demand Action

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:

quote:
How I wish we had a Mothers Against Mass Shootings. Something might get done.

We do have such a group.

Moms Demand Action

Okay maybe something won't get done. [Frown]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Re the Grenfell fire: the law is slightly different over here, Brenda. The residents will probably be offered compensation by the government, because the landlord of the building was the local council (so declaring bankruptcy is not going to fly for them). There may be criminal charges as well for corporate manslaughter. Individual managers who are found liable may also face separate charges for manslaughter under the Health and Safety at Work Act (one of those pettifogging regulations that the government wants to get rid of so British businesses can be More Competitive).

If the (so far hypothetical) charges of manslaughter fail I think the Grenfell residents have the option of bringing a private prosecution. That's how the families of the Hillsborough disaster eventually got justice IIRC, but usually the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutes criminal cases.

Judging by the number of councils frantically testing cladding on other tower blocks, they may get away with the Titanic defence: "The cladding complied with the regulations in force at the time."

And it's a different issue, anyway; the landlord of the Grenfell Tower had a clear duty of care to provide a safe environment for people to live in. The bar owner's responsibility is to provide a safe environment for people to drink in. They have no control over what happens after their customers leave.

[ 11. July 2017, 20:15: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
[tangent]
There is a general problem with lawsuits. Once sued for anything, you need to file papers to defend against it, and they give only 20 days if within province (30 if outside but in Canada). That's the first $2-5000 spent. Winning a lawsuit, even if it never gets to court is quite a bit more than that. You can get "costs" after you win the suit, which are fake-costs, one must multiply by 20-50 times to real costs to defend a lawsuit.
[/tangent]

The costs of prosecuting a lawsuit aren't small potatoes either. Behind many "tort reform" movements are large industries who know that their best strategy is to make it impossible for consumers to be able to afford to sue them in the first place.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The insurance company then sues the taverns/pubs which served the liquor saying they should have stopped the driver from drinking. Link.

It's a load of nonsense. The legal limit for driving a motor vehicle falls far below "intoxication". If any bar attempted to limit their customers to remaining legally able to drive, they'd go out of business in a week. Who would go to a "one beer and you're done" bar?

But in the particular case of Catherine McKay, it seems like she was offered a ride home by one bartender, but turned it down. So at least that one bartender knew that she was unfit to drive, and perhaps also knew that she drove to the bar, and was probably going to drive home.

So perhaps that one bar can't claim that they didn't know she might drive home.

But it does raise an interesting practical question. People go to bars to drink - and generally to drink to at least the point that they could not legally drive home. Given that nobody wants to go to the "One Beer Bar", what's the practical solution to a claim that bars are responsible for their customers driving home under the influence? Demand car keys from customers? Perhaps I came on foot. (And if I personally walked to the bar, I'd have my car keys, because I keep them on the ring with my house keys. And I wouldn't be handing them over to any bar, because there's no way I'd consider some random bar more trustworthy than me, and I'd need them to get back in to my house.)

I've been in places where designated drivers get free soft drinks all night, which is a perfectly reasonable encouragement for people to do the right thing, but what seems to be being proposed here is a rather stronger duty.

You can't claim that bars are responsible for their customers without saying what it is that you want them to do.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:

It is because there is no point in suing the driver, who is probably some kid. A tavern or hotel or bar has assets, probably insurance -- assets to pursue.

I can't speak for any of the United States, but here, in NZ, Canada and the UK at least, there is compulsory insurance to cover any liability an owner or driver may have towards other road users (general terms) for death or personal injuries, with all sorts of provisions to make sure that even if the liability is incurred by a car thief, the insurance pays any damages. You must have evidence of the existence of a policy with an approved insurer before you can register your car each year. It costs me about $1,000 a year to insure my car for these purposes. A proportion of that goes towards a general fund to cover the the occasional vehicle which slips through as well as those where the identity of the vehicle the driver of which caused the accident can't be determined.

The short answer to the original post is that there is probably no legal liability. A few years ago, our High Court heard an appeal from a woman who claimed damages from the hotel which she left drunk and was injured in a car accident on the way home. The Court found no duty of care to her and in terms which would suggest none to others on the road either.

The various laws referred to in other posts are those creating criminal or quasi-criminal responsibility and do not from what is said here deal with civil liability towards others.

[ 11. July 2017, 22:21: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The insurance company then sues the taverns/pubs which served the liquor saying they should have stopped the driver from drinking. Link.
It's a load of nonsense. The legal limit for driving a motor vehicle falls far below "intoxication".

You can't claim that bars are responsible for their customers without saying what it is that you want them to do.

Exactly. A duty of care exists to a person or class of people. It is a duty which carries a standard. It's necessary to define to whom the duty is owed, what the duty is and what the standard is also.

[ 11. July 2017, 22:27: Message edited by: Gee D ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Clarification of insurance and car licencing in this particular jurisdiction (Saskatchewan, Canada).

The conviction of an impaired driving offence is under the Criminal Code of Canada. Such a conviction renders some aspects of insurance void here. The pieces which continue to operate are injury to other people, their future costs and lost income. If a criminally convicted driver is injured, they are covered for the injuries only. The "auto fund", administered by SGI (Sask Government Insurance) pays back the public and free Medicare program for all health and rehab costs. They also pay surviving family members though I'm not sure the benefits and entitlements.

You cannot sue any other driver for injury as it is a "no fault" jurisdiction and part of a government-administered compulsory insurance, very much like government administered medical care, except car owners and drivers are charged premiums as part of getting a driving permit and to licence a vehicle. (It is possible to "opt-out" of the no fault injury insurance, but no one in their right mind does that.)

In this case, SGI is doing the lawsuits on its own behalf. The news suggests that there is mixed views in Sask about it.

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The short answer to the original post is that there is probably no legal liability. A few years ago, our High Court heard an appeal from a woman who claimed damages from the hotel which she left drunk and was injured in a car accident on the way home. The Court found no duty of care to her and in terms which would suggest none to others on the road either.

Apparently the law in Canada is different, but that said, the standard of care required of commercial hosts does not seem very demanding.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

In this case, SGI is doing the lawsuits on its own behalf. The news suggests that there is mixed views in Sask about it.

So SGI here is basically the government, and it's seeking to recover its costs? (Presumably it will have paid out some kind of death-in-car-collision benefit to the Van de Vorst family).

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

My brother took the SmartServe course, which is the mandatory licensing course to serve alcohol in Ontario. One part of the course stresses that serving establishments certainly ARE responsible for contributory negligence due to overservice and intoxication. The usual penalty award is 10-30% of damages.

An establishment in Ontario, in addition to the civil liability at common law, faces the near certain temporary loss of its liquor licence through enforcement action by the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario.

It is illegal in Ontario to serve a patron to the point of intoxication. Letting a patron depart in a motor vehicle in which they are unfit to drive is also illegal under the Liquor Licensing Act.

The usual penalty for a first offence is suspension of the Liquor Licence for 15 days and mandatory retraining for the owner and staff. A second offence means loss of a licence for good.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
One part of the course stresses that serving establishments certainly ARE responsible for contributory negligence due to overservice and intoxication.

Intoxication is a long way past the legal limit for driving a motor car. People who are just over the legal driving limit do not exhibit overt signs of incapacity (although you can measure a reduction in performance).

What is required of Ontario bar staff? Must they ask each patron whether he intends to drive home, and if so, cut him off after one drink? If he says that he's going to walk home, does that protect the bar staff in the event that he is lying? Are they allowed to permit him to go over the legal limit if he intends to wait it out and drive home later?

I get nervous about making people responsible for choices that other people make, so I would hope that there are clear, practical, guidelines that a barman can follow and guarantee to stay safe.

(Oh, and "letting a patron depart in a motor vehicle"? When I leave a bar, I leave on foot. The bar staff can't tell whether I'm walking home, walking to a taxi rank, or walking to my car. So what is required - must they ask every tipsy-looking patron how he intends to get home? Everyone ('cause it's easy to be over the limit and not look it)?

[ 12. July 2017, 00:08: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]

Posted by marsupial. (# 12458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
One part of the course stresses that serving establishments certainly ARE responsible for contributory negligence due to overservice and intoxication.
Intoxication is a long way past the legal limit for driving a motor car. People who are just over the legal driving limit do not exhibit overt signs of incapacity (although you can measure a reduction in performance).

What is required of Ontario bar staff? Must they ask each patron whether he intends to drive home, and if so, cut him off after one drink?

In fairness, McKay blew almost three times over the legal limit (i.e., almost 0.24, the limit being 0.08 in Canada). By any standard that's pretty far gone. (For context, I've seen cases where the accused has blown over 0.24 but I don't think I've ever seen or heard of a case where the accused blew over 0.3.) I agree that bars can't be expected to police the exact legal limit. But as a matter of both principle and policy, I don't think there's any good reason why a bar can't be required to cut someone off at some point in order to protect the broader community -- or at least do something to satisfy themselves they have some way of getting home that doesn't involve driving themselves home. Running a bar is a business, with certain inherent risks. Being held responsible for managing the risks inherent to the business you're operating isn't a novel concept in law.

A curious feature of this case is that the defendants appear to be two different establishments -- which I suppose might leave bar #1 with the defence that McKay didn't appear intoxicated when she left their premises and bar #2 with the defence they had no idea how much she'd already had to drink was when she showed up at their premises.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The entire point of the policy (and it is a policy) is, as marsupial says, to create a economic disincentive to overserve a customer.

A bar is an business model built on plying customers with drinks. Contributory liability is a clear attempt to stop the problem at the source.

The general rule is that if a customer has visibly reduced capacity (unable to stand, slurred speech, sleeping) or if the establishment knows through the bill that the customer has had an unreasonable amount to drink, they should call a cab or otherwise intervene. It is the same rule as to when they have to cut off service.

A small effort is all that is needed to discharge their liability.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Read a great story about a local restaurant. The current owner started years ago as a bartender. One of the regulars, a brawny fisherman (the bar was right by the terminal of the fishing fleet) was getting sloppy, so she cut him off, as she is required to do by state law. He got in her face and said who do you think you are, I'm a regular here, etc.

She walked around the bar, picked his stool up with him on it, and carried them both out the back door.

From that day nobody gave her any lip.

Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on :

Talk of bartenders and legal responsibility reminded me of this and this case.

On the first case

quote:
We want to remind some professionals that it is illegal to serve alcohol to clients who are in an advanced state of inebriation

but from the second case

quote:
the judge said the courts placed a high importance on individual responsibility, and that Mr Parish had taken the decision to drink the spirit shots from one glass.

.

The first quote at first glance would seem to make it very hard to run a bar.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Clarification of one of my previous remarks:

quote:
Individual managers who are found liable may also face separate charges for manslaughter under the Health and Safety at Work Act (one of those pettifogging regulations that the government wants to get rid of so British businesses can be More Competitive).

I was thinking here of the fire safety regulations that proved inadequate to protect the residents of Grenfell Tower, and of David Cameron's campaign to reduce regulation (his New Year resolution in 2012 was apparently to 'end compensation culture' [ source ]. I have no inside knowledge of any plans to repeal the Health and Safety at Work Act, though if Mayhem and Co. get the Henry VIII clauses into their Great Repeal Act, who knows what might happen. [ source ]

[ 12. July 2017, 08:43: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

This might be of help, re US laws:

"Dram Shop Civil Liability and Criminal Penalty State Statutes" (National Conference of State Legislatures).

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

In this case, SGI is doing the lawsuits on its own behalf. The news suggests that there is mixed views in Sask about it.
So SGI here is basically the government, and it's seeking to recover its costs? (Presumably it will have paid out some kind of death-in-car-collision benefit to the Van de Vorst family).

No SGI is not the government. It is a Crown corporation, operates based on legislation that requires it to fund all aspects of auto liability. It mustn't ever be in deficit. It is more like a co-op. The beauty of it is much lower costs. Licence and insurance for cars is cheap here. Varies based on repair costs; we pay about $900 per year for one car and $600 for the other. Covers car, injury, 3rd part liability.

Death benefits will have been paid out of the Auto Fund, which pays all benefits.

(Without being too tangential, publicly run companies do things more efficiently and at lower cost than competition-oriented private businesses, which I type on a smartphone on a Crown run network for 25% less cost than anywhere else in Canada.)

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...short of having someone in every pub car-park waiting to arrest anyone who's had a drink in the last couple of hours.

Even if you did do that, the drunks would just park a few hundred feet down the road instead.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
A bar is an business model built on plying customers with drinks. Contributory liability is a clear attempt to stop the problem at the source.

What problem?

Some of these comments sound to me a bit like saying restaurants shouldn't serve obese people.

[ 12. July 2017, 15:19: Message edited by: Marvin the Martian ]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
No SGI is not the government. It is a Crown corporation, operates based on legislation that requires it to fund all aspects of auto liability.

So who sets the policy for its management? Because the statements that the SGI management is making sound like the statements you'd expect a police chief or prosecutor to make, rather than an insurer.

Here's Earl Cameron, SGI "executive VP":

quote:

“This is a case of contributory negligence. There are laws in place to hold impaired drivers accountable, with jail time, fines and other consequences.”

“We believe that the circumstances of this case are so egregious and the results so tragic, that the establishments who failed to take sufficient actions to prevent it need to be held accountable.”

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Crown Corporations operate at arms-length from government. You are not going to win with the idea that Crown corps are merely branches of gov't, they are not, never have been. The policies and procedures are internal to them. The VP of SGI is articulating the corporate viewpoint of the company. Because it is self-funding like the other Crowns, it has far more independence than other things like health care, education, road/highway construction, which are not Crowns.

We could argue that private companies, particularly oil companies in this province, are much less arms-length from government because the regulations are much laxer about who can talk to whom about policies, political priorities etc. Several scandals about this over time. We've about 70 years of Crown Corps here, they run telephones/cellphone/cable TV/internet, natural gas, electricity, insurance, workers' compensation, and a few other things. They were set up to (a) provide service at all to sparsely populated areas of which we've many, (b) to keep profits in the province and reinvest them.

[tangent]
The current rightwing Sask government wants to sell some or part of some of the Crowns to pay their budget deficit, which is torpedoing their popularity. (why do conservative gov'ts always claim fiscal responsibility and leave it to the socialists and liberals to fix?)
[/tangent]

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(Oh, and "letting a patron depart in a motor vehicle"? When I leave a bar, I leave on foot. The bar staff can't tell whether I'm walking home, walking to a taxi rank, or walking to my car. So what is required - must they ask every tipsy-looking patron how he intends to get home? Everyone ('cause it's easy to be over the limit and not look it)?

I was wondering about that. And unless the place has bouncers on the door, they might not even notice me leave.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
A bar is an business model built on plying customers with drinks. Contributory liability is a clear attempt to stop the problem at the source.
What problem?

Some of these comments sound to me a bit like saying restaurants shouldn't serve obese people.

Yeah, when fat people walk out restaurants and crush people to death, you might have an analogy.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Yeah, when fat people walk out restaurants and crush people to death, you might have an analogy.

That's the wrong analogy. It should be when fat people have heart attacks and their families sue restaurants and supermarket chains for selling them too much food.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
That's the wrong analogy. It should be when fat people have heart attacks and their families sue restaurants and supermarket chains for selling them too much food.

No, that would be a match for a family suing a bar because their relative got drunk and fell into the canal and killed himself.

There is, I think, a difference between enabling people to harm themselves and enabling them to harm other people.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
harm other people.

This is the issue at stake here. Not fat people choking on their gristle, but drunk drivers killing other drivers. There is no analogy to fatness at all, at all, at all.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

(Oh, and "letting a patron depart in a motor vehicle"? When I leave a bar, I leave on foot. The bar staff can't tell whether I'm walking home, walking to a taxi rank, or walking to my car. So what is required - must they ask every tipsy-looking patron how he intends to get home? Everyone ('cause it's easy to be over the limit and not look it)?
I was wondering about that. And unless the place has bouncers on the door, they might not even notice me leave.

Those are among the issues that the High Court considered in holding that the hotel was not liable.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
harm other people.
This is the issue at stake here. Not fat people choking on their gristle, but drunk drivers killing other drivers. There is no analogy to fatness at all, at all, at all.

I was reacting to the stuff that was saying bars shouldn't let people get drunk.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The analogy still doesn't quite work though.

The laws against serving alcohol to people who are already drunk exist for a variety of reasons - attempt to cut down on antisocial behaviour associated with intoxication (which could include injuries to others if that results in fights, or damage to property), and also potential immediate health impacts on those who get drunk (from falling over, etc) with associated costs to the NHS. These are impacts that are associated with activities over a short space of time (the time taken to get pissed).

On the other hand, obesity has minimal impact on others. And, is associated with long term choices about diet (and, potentially other medical conditions). A restaurant refusing to serve someone who is obese isn't going to make them slim, conversely a single night out isn't going to make someone obese.

Put simply, an analogy between getting drunk and eating too much is simply crap.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Obesity is a different problem, because everybody has to eat. Even fat people have to eat. Whereas you could in theory never touch a drop of alcohol again; there are plenty of completely teetotal people who suffer no ill effects from their abstention.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Obesity is a different problem, because everybody has to eat. Even fat people have to eat.

That's not why it's a different problem. Alan has it right - if you go out and get drunk, you are an immediate danger to other people if you drive a car, and possibly also an immediate danger to yourself (if you fall in the river, or decide to go home and fire up the bandsaw). There are also chronic health consequences of excessive alcohol consumption, but they're not what we're concerned with here.

Being fat also has a set of chronic health consequences, but the significant short-term risks do not exist. Serving a fat person the triple bacon burger with extra cheese and a vat of soda doesn't significantly increase the chance that they'll have a heart attack whilst driving home and plow into someone. In the short term, it makes no difference whether you serve them the heart attack burger or a salad.

Posted by balaam (# 4543) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the other hand, obesity has minimal impact on others.

Unless they are sat in the next seat on the bus to you.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by balaam:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
On the other hand, obesity has minimal impact on others.
Unless they are sat in the next seat on the bus to you.

Yeah, same thing as a drunk driving next to you. [Roll Eyes]

It is fucking ridiculous that every time alcohol or smoking are referenced we get loads of stupid comparisons.

[ 13. July 2017, 20:05: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

There is a comparison to be made between smoking and obesity. Both are avoidable with sufficient will power and both have the the potential to burden the health service. The only difference being that smokers pay tax on their poison, whereas overeaters do not.

None of which has any bearing on driving while drunk. Should have thought smart technology ought soon to come up with a device which immobilises a car if alcohol is detected on a person's breathe.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There is a comparison to be made between smoking and obesity. Both are avoidable with sufficient will power ...

This is fucking bullshit. Have you never heard of Willi-Prader syndrome?

To a lesser but very significant degree, there are those medications which cause weight gain regardless of willpower. I'm on FOUR of them.

There are also endocrine disorders like thyroid and etc. I defy you to will away hypothyroidism.

My ingrained training tells me I ought to say "I'm sorry, but" here, but really, I'm not. I'm damned sick of being put to shame for an issue that willpower cannot solve--though half the world around me thinks it can.

Please think next time.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The laws against serving alcohol to people who are already drunk exist for a variety of reasons - attempt to cut down on antisocial behaviour associated with intoxication (which could include injuries to others if that results in fights, or damage to property), and also potential immediate health impacts on those who get drunk (from falling over, etc) with associated costs to the NHS.

I think there is a single reason, which is that alcohol consumption reduces people's power of making right decisions.

Responsibility and power go together.

If someone kidnaps you, forces you to drink so much alcohol that you are incapable of judgment, and then puts you in the driving seat of a car and lets you go, then you're both not responsible for the resulting road accident and not responsible for being in a situation where you're not responsible.

Whereas if you set out to get plastered, you're responsible for your state of irresponsibility and therefore for the consequences of being in that state.

A barman who knowingly assists you in reaching that state is an accomplice in your wrongdoing.

A barman who has reasonable grounds for belief that you are still sober enough to be responsible for your actions is innocent.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
There is a comparison to be made between smoking and obesity.

No, there really isn't. The main reason obesity is a problem is that humans did not evolve to sit on our arses as much as modern life dictates. A main secondary issue is that easy and cheap meals tend towards higher caloric content.
Smoking is necessary, eating is sort of a requirement to continue living.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Smoking is necessary, eating is sort of a requirement to continue living. [/QB]

Thinking that should read 'isn't'. Other thoughts will go on other thread.

Keeping this one on the legal aspects of serving already inebriated individuals.
If such a law was to be strictly enforced here it would undoubtedly deter people from taking up bar work. Similar to people possibly thinking twice about joining the army because of lawsuits being used in a way which has the potential to make certain professions untenable.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0