- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
0
Posted on 6/22/24 at 10:25 pm to John Casey
Ehh that’s okay. I tend to do that myself.
Posted on 6/22/24 at 10:27 pm to DCtiger1
This is insane. I had not heard about this. I live in Denton County now, so not very far away.
Posted on 6/22/24 at 10:29 pm to LSBoosie
Their liability should be less than the other bars.
Posted on 6/22/24 at 10:33 pm to ETXSully
Why should they be liable at all? Do you think that any bars that serves a drink to someone should be liable for anything that happens after that point?
Posted on 6/22/24 at 10:50 pm to LSBoosie
I didn’t say they should be liable. I did say they should be less liable than the others. As I posted earlier, my personal opinion is there should not be liability unless evidence exists that shows the server was on notice or that clearly shows the server should have been on notice, but chose to serve anyway.
Posted on 6/22/24 at 10:53 pm to baldona
quote:
You slam into someone going 65 that’s parked or going slow, you are likely to cause major issues in small cars also.
She was going 65+ in a 25. This wasn’t like she’s rolling down College Dr.
Posted on 6/22/24 at 10:53 pm to The Third Leg
quote:
Lol sure thing. I’m well aware of golf carts being driven on roads in shitty small towns all over the US. My statement still stands
Where do you live? New York City?
Posted on 6/22/24 at 10:58 pm to Cosmo
quote:
quote:I don’t think bars should be liable for what their patrons do.
Yep Dumb as suing gun companies and gun stores
It’s not even close to being the same thing. One at least involves some level of personal proximity and perception to determine a risk.
Posted on 6/22/24 at 11:09 pm to SteelerBravesDawg
Alcohol is trashy
Posted on 6/22/24 at 11:37 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
How about any of the people with her at dinner? Or the people in the bar at the same time as her? They all had an opportunity to tackle her and stop her poor decision making, but they didn't. Better garnish their wages.
Whybdonyou need to bring in vague possibilities and not address real situations that happened when she was oversized.
Who cares, she's going to jail and the husband won the suit. That means the court found liability thru the presentation of evidence. It's that simple
Posted on 6/23/24 at 1:03 am to DCtiger1
quote:
To make a profit? Yea, so do pharma and vaccine companies. The fact that you cannot make the logical discernment between your fast food hypothetical and this situation is mind boggling
I never made a fast food hypothetical. I simply responded to yours.
Pharmaceutical companies putting out products they know are flawed and being granted immunity for creating them, which happened with the COVID shots, is not comparable to either of these scenarios though. No one is being deceived into believing abusing alcohol and engorging themselves on fatty foods is good.
This post was edited on 6/23/24 at 1:06 am
Posted on 6/23/24 at 1:14 am to SteelerBravesDawg
I just can’t understand these stupid goddamn frickers who not only insist on driving drunk, but then drive crazy while drunk. Anytime I got behind the wheel after a few drinks I drive slower and more carefully than when sober.
Posted on 6/23/24 at 3:13 am to LSBoosie
Under South Carolina law (S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-580), it is illegal to knowingly serve alcohol to any person who is intoxicated.
In cases involving violation of the dram shop statute, like this one, the plaintiff will argue that the defendant is negligent per se for violating the criminal statute. The plaintiff merely needs to show the bar served alcohol to a person when they knew the person was intoxicated, the violation was a cause of the accident, and the accident caused the damages, in this case, the death of the bride and the injuries of several people.
The bar is not liable merely for serving alcohol to a person. The bar is only liable if they serve alcohol to a person when they knew (or should have known) the person was intoxicated. In theses types of cases, the plaintiff nearly always uses video in the bar or directly outside the bar to show that the bar should known that the person was intoxicated.
In cases involving violation of the dram shop statute, like this one, the plaintiff will argue that the defendant is negligent per se for violating the criminal statute. The plaintiff merely needs to show the bar served alcohol to a person when they knew the person was intoxicated, the violation was a cause of the accident, and the accident caused the damages, in this case, the death of the bride and the injuries of several people.
The bar is not liable merely for serving alcohol to a person. The bar is only liable if they serve alcohol to a person when they knew (or should have known) the person was intoxicated. In theses types of cases, the plaintiff nearly always uses video in the bar or directly outside the bar to show that the bar should known that the person was intoxicated.
Posted on 6/23/24 at 6:48 am to Salviati
quote:
The bar is not liable merely for serving alcohol to a person. The bar is only liable if they serve alcohol to a person when they knew (or should have known) the person was intoxicated.
In these cases, this is nearly always a distinction without a difference. Sure, that's what the law says. No, that doesn't really mean anything in court.
quote:
In theses types of cases, the plaintiff nearly always uses video in the bar or directly outside the bar to show that the bar should known that the person was intoxicated.
This statement contradicts your first one. Just because there's video of someone outside the bar, or even inside the bar, stumbling around/slurring words/whatever doesn't prove someone who works at the bar noticed that happening. You've actually highlighted the impossible standard businesses are being held to by these laws. If there's any evidence that someone was intoxicated before ordering a drink, it doesn't matter if the business noticed that. In effect, the assumption is they should have known regardless.
This post was edited on 6/23/24 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 6/23/24 at 6:52 am to SteelerBravesDawg
Seems like the wrong people are footing the bill honestly. Not sure why OP supports this.
Posted on 6/23/24 at 6:53 am to Pelican fan99
quote:
Terrible story but making bars pay for something like this is so stupid
Especially in a bar hopping scenario. She may have not even presented herself drunk upon entering each bar.
Now, if she was parked at a single bar for hours and hours where they obviously over served her, I think they should bear some responsibility.
Posted on 6/23/24 at 6:54 am to TigerDeBaiter
quote:
Especially in a bar hopping scenario. She may have not even presented herself drunk upon entering each bar.
Now, if she was parked at a single bar for hours and hours where they obviously over served her, I think they should bear some responsibility.
Exactly.
Posted on 6/23/24 at 6:58 am to Salviati
quote:
Under South Carolina law (S.C. Code Ann. § 61-4-580), it is illegal to knowingly serve alcohol to any person who is intoxicated.
So, you’re only allowed to serve one drink per person? What kind of ridiculous mental gymnastic law is this. By definition many people are intoxicated after one drink. So do they breathalyze each patron after each drink?
Posted on 6/23/24 at 7:00 am to ChatGPT of LA
quote:
Depends on situation. Let's say Bartender serves and does several shots with her and knows she's driving.
And then serves her more and or doesn't try to deter her from driving.
Slippery slope that we've probably all been on
The problem is everything else that can qualify for that. Can I sue McDonalds for ad campaigns directed at me, once I start having heart failure? No, but apparently I can for cigarettes and various other items. We just want consistency.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News