America: "Its not my fault" our new motto :(

[CartesianFart]

What the hell is wrong with America when a drunk driver isn't the one who responcable for crashing his car while driving drunk and on the phone?

To answer your question is this:Too many starving lawyers.

 

[Whomp]

Having bartended a katrillion years ago there were many times I called cabs for my patrons (understanding personal risk as well as the bar). The problem with their suit is from the article.

The law does not define how to visibly distinguish intoxication, so it is difficult to enforce.

I think the attorney, like any attorney would, is throwing everything they can at the wall. The fact remains he was on the phone with his girl when he hit the tow truck. I had a client who went past the area the next day and there wasn't even a skid mark. A good case to get off the phone and especially if you're wrecked.

 

[JollyRoger]

The fact that he was twice past the legal limit coupled with the fact that the bartender offered a cab, would be strong evidence that the bar knew that they served the patron past the point of legal intoxication and there was visible evidence thereof. I think because of who the plaintiffs are in this case, that collecting anything is very speculative. If the plaintiff was someone that the driver had seriusly injured, I am highly confident that the bar would be on the hook and have to pay out.

 

[woody60707]

It's the fault of:...
2. The bar that broke the law by serving him well past the point of intoxication; ...

WTH! Dude, have you ever been to a bar. Thats pretty much the point of the place is to get intoxicated.

That is about as dumb as the police in Texas going to bars and arresting drunks.

As a note: being over the legal limit is two drinks in one hour or 3 drinks in 2 hours. 0.08 BAL is low.

 

[JollyRoger]

WTH! Dude, have you ever been to a bar. Thats pretty much the point of the place is to get intoxicated.

That is about as dumb as the police in Texas going to bars and arresting drunks.

As a note: being over the legal limit is two drinks in one hour or 3 drinks in 2 hours. 0.08 BAL is low.

The guy was over twice the legal limit and a bar does have a legal responsibility to stop serving intoxicated patrons.

 

[Whomp]

The Cardinals organization knew Josh's history. It might be worthwhile for teams, like the Cardinals, to have a car on call for their key employees.

 

[EdwardTking]

The guy was over twice the legal limit and a bar does have a legal responsibility to stop serving intoxicated patrons.

But what is the legal definition of "intoxicated" in that state?

I note that one can be too drunk to drive lawfully,
but still perfectly capable of walking home!

And more generally a customer may not look intoxicated
prior to their last quadruple brandy!

 

[woody60707]

@ JollyRoger.

I have the right to get drunk and hang out if I want. I'm a grown man, and should be held accountable for my actions. But I also have the right to take those same actions.

 

[JollyRoger]

@ JollyRoger.

I have the right to get drunk and hang out if I want. I'm a grown man, and should be held accountable for my actions. But I also have the right to take those same actions.

As a bartender, you do not have the right to serve a visibly intoxicated patron.

 

[Tycoon101]

I have two words to end this insanity:

Tort. Reform.

As a bartender, you do not have the right to serve a visibly intoxicated patron.

However, a visibly intoxicated patron does not have the right to drink to intoxication.

You get my drift...

 

[JollyRoger]

But what is the legal definition of "intoxicated" in that state?

I note that one can be too drunk to drive lawfully,
but still perfectly capable of walking home!

And more generally a customer may not look intoxicated
prior to their last quadruple brandy!

The guy was visibly drunk enough to be offered a cab ride home. Since he refused, a responsible bar owner would have alerted the authorities the moment he walked out the door with the obvious intention to drive. Since he was a celebrity patron of the bar, they opted not to and now find themselves facing the consequences of irresponsible behaviour.

Looks like some of you have an easy enough time of letting the bar hide behind the "It's not my fault" motto of the thread title.

 

[skadistic]

Did the bar drive the car and wreck it into the parked tow truck with flashings lights while speeding and talking on the phone?

 

[JollyRoger]

Did the bar drive the car and wreck it into the parked tow truck with flashings lights while speeding and talking on the phone?

If I paid you to drive and crash a car and it caused you to die, should have I some culpability? The bar made at least two mistakes here: First - allowing a patron to reach twice the legal limit of intoxication and Second - not keeping him from driving more the couple of blocks necessary for the cops to pull him over.

But of course, they are American, so they have the "It's not my fault" mentality.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The question should be, what of this would have still happened had the man not been three sheets to the wind?

 

[EdwardTking]

The guy was visibly drunk enough to be offered a cab ride home.

Then IMHO by so doing the bar discharged its moral and any legal responsibility.

Since he refused, a responsible bar owner would have alerted the authorities the moment he walked out the door with the obvious intention to drive.

Is there a law in that state which puts an obligation on bar owners to inform the authorities?

Since he was a celebrity patron of the bar, they opted not to and now find themselves facing the consequences of irresponsible behaviour.

And if they had, and the press reported; then the bar might have gone bankrupt fighting off false claims for defamation or he might have come back the next night and beaten up the bar tender.

Looks like some of you have an easy enough time of letting the bar hide behind the "It's not my fault" motto of the thread title.

I don't believe bar tenders have the responsibilities of being parents or guardians to their customers.

 

[Tycoon101]

The complaint alleges that Josh Hancock "regularly became visibly intoxicated" at Shannon's and that, "The intoxication of Joshua Morgan Hancock on said occasion was involuntary."

He involuntarily became drunk? Did someone pour the beer into his mouth?

Besides his downtown restaurant, the defendants in the suit are:

— Patricia Shannon Van Matre, Shannon's daughter and manager of the business.

— Justin Tolar, a Collinsville resident whose car struck a median wall along Highway 40 and stalled shortly before Hancock came along.

— Jacob E. Hargrove, a tow truck driver who stopped to help Tolar.

— Eddie's Towing, owner of the tow truck.

No comment on the final three listed defendents.

Van Matre told the Post-Dispatch later the day of the crash that Hancock had declined an offer to call him a cab, but she would not say then whether he had been drinking. She said he told her that he was headed to the Westin Hotel three blocks away.

That is walking distance, actually.

Police found some marijuana in the wrecked SUV. Graham said tests showed that Hancock had used marijuana in the past "but there was no active component of marijuana" in his system when he died.

Aaaand he was in possesion of an illegal drug.



Please, stop defending this family. This is entirely rediculous.

 

[Whomp]

I searched some of the dram shop laws and I don't think he stands a chance under Missouri law. Since he was headed towards his girls place instead of the Westin adds to that.

Missouri’s dram shop law requires proof that the party demonstrates "significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction."

If he simply crossed the Mississippi the story would be completely different

Under Illinois’ dram shop law, plaintiffs can recover after demonstrating: 1) proof of sale of alcohol to the patron; (2) injuries sustained by the patron; (3) proximate cause between the alcohol sale and intoxication; and (4) that intoxication was at least one cause of the third party damages.

 

[JollyRoger]

Then IMHO by so doing the bar discharged its moral and any legal responsibility.

Nope - they still have the moral responsibility to make sure their business patrons are not a danger to the public at large because of leaving in an intoxicated state. There was still a reasonable step they could have taken - called the cops and give them probable cause to pull him over.

Is there a law in that state which puts an obligation on bar owners to inform the authorities?

Nope, but a bar owner that knows that an intoxicated person is about to get behind the wheel exposes themselves to the risk of civil liability if they don't call law enforcement.

And if they had, and the press reported; then the bar might have gone bankrupt fighting off false claims for defamation or he might have come back the next night and beaten up the bar tender.

The cops would have pulled him over and he would have been shown that he was intoxicated. Show me the false defamation there. And a baseball player should be able to be easily handled by a typical bouncer if he came back for retaliation.

I don't believe bar tenders have the responsibilities of being parents or guardians to their customers.

They have a responsibility to the public at large to minimize their patrons driving drunk.

 

[woody60707]

Most of the time, I don't step one foot in the bar till I'm twice the legal limit (2x the legal limit would be 4 shots in one hour).

Jolly, your missing the point of a bar, its to have fun, make bad passes/rejected by girls, and to GET intoxicated. If your intoxicated, your going to look intoxicated.

The only way to stop this is to close down bars. (yes, this is a personal issue for me)

 

[amadeus]

I think I know who our next state senator is!