Washington Post: Bars not liable for patrons' crashes, Maryland court rules (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/bars-not-liable-for-patrons-crashes-maryland-court-rules/2013/07/25/917043c4-f56c-11e2-aa2e-4088616498b4_story.html)
Fully agreed.
Tragic or not, at what point does personal responsibility take hold? If the bars were liable, what about the automaker which built the automobile(s) involved the crash? The manufacturer of the alcoholic beverage(s)? The school district which the drunk attended to attend driver's ed? Or the legal entity which granted the driver's license in the first place?
While I could understand why the insurance companies want to deflect payouts to whichever party is truly at fault for ultimate responsibility of misuse, in probably all cases of drunken driving, it comes back to the smart-ass or dumb-ass sitting in the driver's seat.
Agreed, too, and for the same reasons. Such 'Dramshop' laws are an abomination that are perpetuated by lawyers, insurance companies and neo-Prohibitionists.
:banghead:
Mike
Does Maryland have a law prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons? Kentucky does. I seem to recall cases in Kentucky where bars were held liable for not cutting off a drunk, and said drunk subsequently caused a wreck.
How about the police department, for not pulling the drunk driver over before the crash occurred?
Quote from: hbelkins on July 26, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
Does Maryland have a law prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons?
Yeah, Maryland does.
Article 2B, § 12-108. Sales to minors and intoxicated persons prohibited (http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmStatutesText.aspx?article=g2b§ion=12-108&ext=html&session=2014RS&tab=subject5)
In particular, that section forbids the sale of alcohol:
QuoteTo any person who, at the time of the sale, or delivery, is visibly under the influence of any alcoholic beverage.
Violation is a misdemeanor. Repeated violations can lead to a beer/wine or liquor license being suspended or revoked.
QuoteKentucky does. I seem to recall cases in Kentucky where bars were held liable for not cutting off a drunk, and said drunk subsequently caused a wreck.
I recall the aftermath of this wreck pretty well (it got a lot of news media attention), but I don't know if the bar might have been guilty of violating § 12-108 (if it could be proven that the people working there had broken that law, then perhaps this civil suit would have ended differently).
Quote from: hbelkins on July 26, 2013, 11:01:50 AM
Does Maryland have a law prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons? Kentucky does. I seem to recall cases in Kentucky where bars were held liable for not cutting off a drunk, and said drunk subsequently caused a wreck.Quote from: mgk920 on July 26, 2013, 09:33:31 AM
Agreed, too, and for the same reasons. Such 'Dramshop' laws are an abomination that are perpetuated by lawyers, insurance companies and neo-Prohibitionists.
:banghead:
Mike
I agree. But - one practice I agree with from the Nordic nations that is apparently not done in the U.S. is to allow police to require a PBT test of any driver arriving at (or leaving) a place that sells alcoholic beverages. That puts the burden where it belongs - on law enforcement.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2013, 01:19:28 PM
QuoteKentucky does. I seem to recall cases in Kentucky where bars were held liable for not cutting off a drunk, and said drunk subsequently caused a wreck.
I recall the aftermath of this wreck pretty well (it got a lot of news media attention), but I don't know if the bar might have been guilty of violating § 12-108 (if it could be proven that the people working there had broken that law, then perhaps this civil suit would have ended differently).
You're probably talking about the big church bus wreck, but that wasn't what I was thinking of.
Quote from: formulanone on July 26, 2013, 08:37:09 AM
Fully agreed.
Tragic or not, at what point does personal responsibility take hold? If the bars were liable, what about the automaker which built the automobile(s) involved the crash? The manufacturer of the alcoholic beverage(s)? The school district which the drunk attended to attend driver's ed? Or the legal entity which granted the driver's license in the first place?
While I could understand why the insurance companies want to deflect payouts to whichever party is truly at fault for ultimate responsibility of misuse, in probably all cases of drunken driving, it comes back to the smart-ass or dumb-ass sitting in the driver's seat.
Precedent was established at a ballpark, liable for serving a drunk patron more alcohol, who then went and killed a family on the way home. Not sure I agree with that, but to an extent, the bar should not serve anyone more alcohol IF they know someone drove here. Now, how do you establish that? What if I park a block away and walk in? No one at the bar would know. I think that's why Maryland's court had to rule the way it did.
For those that might be interested, the opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals (that's our highest appellate court) in this case, written by Judge Lynne A. Battaglia, can be found here (http://www.mdcourts.gov/opinions/coa/2013/57a12.pdf) (Adobe Acrobat .pdf, 351 kb).
Unless you can prove someone forced that booze down your throat, the responsibility should be 100% on you for your sobriety or lack of same.
Rick
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2013, 01:31:06 PM
one practice I agree with from the Nordic nations that is apparently not done in the U.S. is to allow police to require a PBT test of any driver arriving at (or leaving) a place that sells alcoholic beverages. That puts the burden where it belongs - on law enforcement.
Nordic countries can do this because Nordic countries do not have a legal concept of probable cause. It is perfectly OK in a place such as Sweden for cops to stop anyone without any suspicion of anything and check to make sure they have a valid license and registration, aren't driving drunk, etc. In the US, the need for probable cause prevents police from doing such things. Indeed, in the US,
even if you are arrested for DUI you can refuse to take a breathalyzer test, although you will be penalized for doing so.
Quote from: Steve on July 26, 2013, 06:53:16 PM
Quote from: formulanone on July 26, 2013, 08:37:09 AM
Fully agreed.
Tragic or not, at what point does personal responsibility take hold? If the bars were liable, what about the automaker which built the automobile(s) involved the crash? The manufacturer of the alcoholic beverage(s)? The school district which the drunk attended to attend driver's ed? Or the legal entity which granted the driver's license in the first place?
While I could understand why the insurance companies want to deflect payouts to whichever party is truly at fault for ultimate responsibility of misuse, in probably all cases of drunken driving, it comes back to the smart-ass or dumb-ass sitting in the driver's seat.
Precedent was established at a ballpark, liable for serving a drunk patron more alcohol, who then went and killed a family on the way home. Not sure I agree with that, but to an extent, the bar should not serve anyone more alcohol IF they know someone drove here. Now, how do you establish that? What if I park a block away and walk in? No one at the bar would know. I think that's why Maryland's court had to rule the way it did.
I've left my car overnight at bars before. Driving yourself to the bar isn't a good criteria.
QuoteTo any person who, at the time of the sale, or delivery, is visibly under the influence of any alcoholic beverage.
The way I read that law, a bartender selling a second drink to someone regardless of intoxication is braking it. The bartender serving the first drink and seeing the patron consume it is a visual I dictation that the patron is under the influence of alcohol. They certainly wouldn't be drunk but the law doesn't mention intoxication.
Quote from: Duke87 on July 26, 2013, 10:26:27 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on July 26, 2013, 01:31:06 PM
one practice I agree with from the Nordic nations that is apparently not done in the U.S. is to allow police to require a PBT test of any driver arriving at (or leaving) a place that sells alcoholic beverages. That puts the burden where it belongs - on law enforcement.
Nordic countries can do this because Nordic countries do not have a legal concept of probable cause. It is perfectly OK in a place such as Sweden for cops to stop anyone without any suspicion of anything and check to make sure they have a valid license and registration, aren't driving drunk, etc. In the US, the need for probable cause prevents police from doing such things. Indeed, in the US, even if you are arrested for DUI you can refuse to take a breathalyzer test, although you will be penalized for doing so.
the US has these too; they're called DUI checkpoints.
a blatant violation of "probable cause", but hey, think of the children.
Washington Post op-ed: Maryland case shows bars should be liable for drunk patrons (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/maryland-case-shows-bars-should-be-liable-for-drunk-patrons/2013/07/31/e5fc6974-fa15-11e2-a369-d1954abcb7e3_story.html)
QuoteThe staff at Dogfish Head Alehouse in Gaithersburg knew the customer's taste in beer so well they identified him on his tab as "Mike Corona Guy" on that fatal night in August 2008.
QuoteThey also knew something was wrong when Michael D. Eaton downed 17 bottles of the Mexican brew, plus a shot of vodka, in about five hours. It was too much.
QuoteEaton's waitress cut him off about 10 p.m., when he turned argumentative. A manager offered to call him a taxi.
QuoteSadly, Eaton declined the cab. And no one from the alehouse insisted or tried to stop him.
QuoteEaton drove off in what he later called a drunken blackout. Shortly afterward, while speeding, he rear-ended another car on I-270.