Woman: I was kicked out of bar for being pregnant!

I'd actually disagree that they're more vulnerable. Vulnerable, in the sense that I'm using it in this context, is about the ease with which the person in question can sustain serious, irreparable harm, under the circumstances we're talking about (In this case, a bar, after midnight). A blind man might not be able to get out of the way as fast as a man with unimpaired sight, but other than that, is on average not much different: a shove against the wall, falling to the ground from a tipped over chair, a wild punch connecting, and so on, would not be any more damaging to a blind man than a sighted man. It might be more disorienting, but not physically damaging.

A pregnant woman, on the other hand, might be able to get out of the way a bit faster than a blind man (Depending on the blind man and the woman, I suppose) but could suffer irreparable damage in the form of a miscarriage from any of those actions I just listed. The possibility that a pregnant woman could suffer serious harm is higher, because all the normal sources of serious injury (Stabbed, shot, broken skull on falling to the ground, etc) apply, while additional sources of injury that would normally be less serious are more so. It is on this basis that I would say a pregnant woman is more vulnerable, and thus a higher liability.

So then what about a person with a medical condition that also increases the effect of injury. Say someone who has recently had major surgery. If they are knocked over then they are a lot more likely to have a more serious injury.
 
It's not like the baby can up and leave.
Sure it can. It's called "miscarriage." Or sometimes, if the baby is born dead, it's called "stillbirth."
 
Again, I'm not sure why or how you think the bar could be held liable for that. The rest of your post doesn't explain why or how the bar could be held liable for that either.
Because they could be? I'm honestly surprised that you're disputing that they could be seriously sued under such circumstances. It seems pretty obvious that they could be sued. Why do you find it so implausible?

So then what about a person with a medical condition that also increases the effect of injury. Say someone who has recently had major surgery. If they are knocked over then they are a lot more likely to have a more serious injury.
I'm not sure what sort of major surgery would both render someone that vulnerable to seriously yet not be so serious that he or she would be out in a bar instead of in a hospital, while also being obvious enough that the employees of a bar could detect the condition (So that they could conceivably formulate some rule about that person being there). I suppose if such a condition existed, I would support a bar's right to refuse service to a person with that condition, but this hypothetical is so full of holes and so empty of definite facts that I'm not sure what point this is supposed to prove.
 
Again, I'm not sure why or how you think the bar could be held liable for that. The rest of your post doesn't explain why or how the bar could be held liable for that either.

Because they didn't provide the safe environment you speak of, evidenced by the fact that in the hypothetical the lady is knocked over. Again, litigious nature of society...
 
Again, litigious nature of society...

I hate how people always say this as though it's a bad thing. Adversarial legalism has been good for the US, particularly when it has come to enforcing consumer protection and environmental protection laws and Europe has seen this and is increasingly moving closer to a US model of adversarial legalism because it reduces the burden on government bureaucracy. In fact I would say adversarial legalism is the ideal model to follow. And the notion of the US as a litigious society is far overstated, I don't remember the % offhand but the number of cases that actually go to trial without being resolved beforehand and it's a minuscule number compared to the cases which are actually filed.
 
Sure, but a pitfall is evident in this case, assuming you think the pregnant woman should've been allowed to enter.
 
The fact that most cases are not brought to trial isn't necessarily a good thing.

Except for the lawyers.
 
The fact that an aggressor with more money can bully a smaller defender into settling to avoid millions in legal fees.
 
The fact that an aggressor with more money can bully a smaller defender into settling to avoid millions in legal fees.

And that wouldn't happen if it went to trial because.....?

And there are just as many, if not more cases of big companies settling with individuals to avoid going to trial.
 
Read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood

Isnt the South a backwards theocracy ?
Rather then a progressive facist communist appeasement ocracy ?
 
Wouldn't lawyers benefit more if a case went to trial? More time = more legal fees?

I'm not sure what you mean.

We can presume that what is preventing the bar from allowing the woman to enter in this situation is the risk they carry. So the bar suffers because it can't let a potential customer enter, or face large costs if anything goes awry, and the woman suffers because they are refused entry. That's not a good outcome for either, and is down to what I said was the litigious nature of society. So whilst the system might be a great system, in this case it evidently has forced a less than optimum result for both parties involved.
 
you can google reviews of the place at "coach house restaurant" & roselle

looks like an average bar next to a main road set in the middle of suburban sprawl

Sounds like a happening place.

restaurantdb.net said:
"the food and service has always been great with no dissapointments"
(sic)

Yelp said:
This place is Jersey Shore meets Addison meets rough. I can't really put my finger on why, but I would never hang out with anyone I meet at this bar. It's scummy to the maximum. It was a contest to see whose Affliction shirt was tighter than the next guys. I felt out of place in a polo shirt, so if you go here, get some Ed Hardy or Affliction
http://www.yelp.com/biz/coach-house-roselle
 
I'm sure glad that in the thread title it was clarified that it was a woman that was kicked out for being pregnant.
I was just quoting the AZ Central Headline. They're the ones you should be calling captain obvious.
 
I suspect he was trying to do the right thing, and just didn't know enough to actually take the correct answer.

This. Bouncers are frequently ignorant about the specifics of their jobs, and they don't give a damn.
 
like how bouncers aren't actually allowed to manhandle patrons.
 
Well they can restrain violent patrons who are a danger to others to break up a fight or something, but they can't rough them up or anything.
 
People in America have been sued for much less than that. It is the problem US has with an overpopulation of bored Lawyers with no career opportunities.
You're saying there is a precedent for bars being sued because one customer bumps into another customer? Do you have a source for this?
Because they could be? I'm honestly surprised that you're disputing that they could be seriously sued under such circumstances. It seems pretty obvious that they could be sued. Why do you find it so implausible?
I'm disputing it because it's utter nonsense. I have absolutely no idea why you and so many others think that the bar is liable for a customer bumping into another customer. Do you have any source for this "knowledge", or are you just making it up?

Because they didn't provide the safe environment you speak of, evidenced by the fact that in the hypothetical the lady is knocked over.
Err, how is a lady getting knocked over "evidence of an unsafe environment". :dubious: Clearly the bar isn't liable for a customer bumping into another customer. They're responsible for taking reasonable measures to prevent bar fights, knives, guns, etc being used, but they're clearly not responsible for preventing people from bumping into one another. Indeed, if a bar fight breaks out, but the bar did everything it could to prevent it (e.g. having bouncers on hand who quickly broke the fight up), the bar would still not be liable.

I'm honestly baffled why people think that a bar is liable if one customer bumps into another customer :confused: Not sure where you got such a plainly nonsensical understanding of liability from, but oh well... You people think that "omg it happened in a bar therefore the bar is GUILTY!!!!!"? You think lawyers can just make any old law suit and take a business to court? You think a lawyer can just somehow magic up a case without there being some kind of law behind it? If the bar did something wrong, and the lawyer believes he can prove it, then there is a case there. If the lawyer can't prove the bar did anything wrong then there is no case.

So tell me, in this ridiculous scenario where one guy bumps into a pregnant lady and she miscarries, what exactly did the bar do wrong here? And you're going to have to do better than "didn't create an environment where ladies can't get bumped into".
 
Err, how is a lady getting knocked over "evidence of an unsafe environment". :dubious: Clearly the bar isn't liable for a customer bumping into another customer.
Why was the patron who knocked into the lady stumbling around? Because he'd been served alcohol? Who by? The bar.

I don't know exactly who is liable for what in Chicago, but here at least, a bar is liable for the actions of the patrons it serves alcohol to, if the alcohol was a factor in an incident (although there was a recent court ruling that may or may not have changed this :dunno:).

Of course, the obvious reply is that there is nothing to say that alcohol would be a factor in any such incident. But there are a whole myriad of situations under which the bar would either hold liability, or be at risk of having to fight an unwelcome legal battle, even if they are in the right.

But either way, the point isn't really that the bar was absolutely right, but that they weren't absolutely in the wrong. Possible liability put them in a hard place. I think they should've let this lady in too, but they need to be able to cover themselves. It's a safe assumption that the reason for the lady being refused entry was possibly liability worries, and whilst the chances are that nothing bad would've come from it, I'm not entirely sure that taking on that risk is something that the bar should be forced to do.
 
Top Bottom