Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Raevix t1_j4zn2wv wrote

Reply to comment by protocol1008 in Woman sues concert venue after getting so drunk she blew up a home, caused $15M in damages by EyeWantItThatWay

Hi, I work in Ontario and took the Smart Serve Training for serving alcoholic beverages. Whether or not it's right or reasonable, based on very clearly defined Ontario law, Ovations Ontario Food Services is actually legally liable for these damages and they have almost no defense that could stand in court.

She's gonna win that lawsuit. And the people who served her might even be criminally liable for some of the resulting damage.

(No I don't like it either)

277

Langstarr t1_j4zr7yw wrote

For Americans -- your state may have Dram Shop laws, which are the same as this Canadian fellow has outlined. I used to bartend in NYC and it was my legal responsibility to cut people off and I could and would be held liable in an overserving situation like this.

132

Aldous_Hoaxley t1_j4zxjv7 wrote

That's how I learned to order Tito's instead of Dripping Springs vodka in bars. Trying to pronounce the latter after a few drinks would get me cut off immediately.

74

JonnySnowflake t1_j501jah wrote

Same idea, but I switched to Pall Malls in college because I couldn't pronounce "Marlboro" after walking through the cold to get to the gas station

15

LovsickPrfectaTerain t1_j502ymq wrote

I never tried. Even if you called me marbleblows they'd sell em. I always called em Marlbros and they still sold em.

9

MonsieurReynard t1_j522xxo wrote

The new fun is American spirits. They come in like 24 varieties distinguished by slightly different colored packs. And no one knows the proper name, everyone just says the color. So it's "American Spirit Blue" or "American Spirit yellow." But with so many there are like four shades of blue and four shades of yellow now. And around me the gas stations are mostly staffed by people whose first language is Urdu or Bengali (perfectly nice people, they just don't necessarily know every English color term) and so you get into a whole thing of "American spirit gold, no the darker yellow, no that's like mustard, the GOLD, yeah no, the next one, good now up one row, yeah those." I imagine it would be challenging if you were drunk.

11

LovsickPrfectaTerain t1_j54qt1m wrote

Yep. Can't advertise by flavor, no lights or ultralights anymore, especially menthols.

1

MonsieurReynard t1_j522akx wrote

I could see "Tito's" going wrong in amusing ways too.

Me I like Tennessee whiskey and bug spray, but it's a beast to order "Jack n Off" when I'm wasted.

9

rct1 t1_j527exp wrote

Filing that for the next fishing trip. Cheers

3

Thunderhorse74 t1_j51vvv8 wrote

This redditor does local Texas vodka...

2

MonsieurReynard t1_j5231wr wrote

You can buy Tito's around me in rural Massachusetts. It's been a national brand for a while now.

ETA I just checked and they now have a ten story distillery and made 3.8 million cases of Tito's last year!

4

Welpmart t1_j53ac5z wrote

Checking in from rural Mass, can confirm.

1

DFG57 t1_j510r5t wrote

Yep. Also a former bartender here. If I served someone who was obviously drunk I could be held liable for what they did when they left the bar. But I believe there would have to be witnesses that the drunk was falling down or stumbling, slurring, etc. and I served them anyway. There was a regular customer who spent six months in jail after his sixth DUI and the night he got out he stumbled into the bar and asked for a scotch rocks. I told him I wasn't serving him because he was too drunk and he responded "No, it's OK. I quit driving." So he had his priorities all set.

13

Caldren57 t1_j5287ne wrote

I get it, but as a bartender at a concert where there are several bars, it's hard to see who actually gets the drink, a male companion, boyfriend, husband, whomever, buys 2 at a time, at 1 station. Next station 2 more, come back to 1 get 2 more etc... and if there are 3 or more, gimme a break. Wheeeeee.

8

DFG57 t1_j528uum wrote

Agreed. How the hell am I on the hook for someone who is able to pronounce “vodka rocks” then walk away? If I have to lift his head off the bar to ask if he wants another that’s a different story. If this suit collects any money I hope she never sees a penny of it.

6

daschowdertailz t1_j54ggip wrote

If you got an extra 23 bucks look into taking the Oregon Liquor Control Commission (olcc) alcohol permit test. Oregon has the strictest liquor laws in the US. Gotta be a card holder to do bar and gotta take the course and test every 3 years now I believe.

2

keith0211 t1_j51t545 wrote

Generally, though, those laws only allow people injured by the drunk person to sue the venue. In the vast majority of places in the US, the drunk person cannot get damages.

12

BA_calls t1_j530jyc wrote

That seems to be what’s happening. The $15M of damage is probably what she’s been sued for.

1

Rheum42 t1_j51kwqp wrote

I think it's ridiculous that bartenders are held liable for other people's drinking problems

7

Blue_Jays t1_j52u7ul wrote

That would be comparable to casinos being held liable for people losing money due to their gambling addictions and we know that ain't happening!

2

Keyboardists t1_j502std wrote

This is true for the majority of the US too. As much as I do understand it and promote responsible alcohol service, you can’t exactly control what someone does once cut off. There could be other issues at play here.

Small anecdote - had to cut someone off as a bartender before. He came in appearing sober, had one drink, stepped the the bathroom, and came back severely intoxicated. He had clearly taken something we didn’t sell in there. Called him a cab and he pulled off shit-faced in his car before it could arrive. Gave police his tag number and never heard back about it. Had he done something similar to this woman, I would’ve hated to be on the hook despite doing the right thing.

22

Austoman t1_j500zhy wrote

Yup. To expand on this.

Across Canada the law (roughly) is that any alcohol provider (personal or corporate) must ensure that anyone imbibing in alcohol that they have supplied either get home safely or the responsibility is passed onto a reliable/reasonable party. That is to say a provider must also supply a safe drive home, usually a taxi or other reasonable transportation. If a provider sends a supplied individual out of their location without a responsible means of getting them home or passing the responsibility to a sober individual then any harm to the intoxicated person or done by the intoxicated person in the responsibility of the provider.

So since the venue sent this obviously intoxicated person home without providing any reasonable transportation (thus resulting in her driving drunk) any damages caused by her after being placed into a state of intoxication by the venue is the responsibility of the venue.

Basically all the venue had to do was call her a cab and it would have been fine. Someone chose to kick her out and send her into the wild while she was obviously drunk, so yeah in Canada the damage was caused by the person (company) that gave her alcohol and then kicked her out without a reasonable way of getting home.

While some may not like it there is some logic to it. If youre going to get someone drunk then they are no longer able to make soind decisions. You placed them in that position and so it is on you to get them home (within reason).

10

imregrettingthis t1_j5022z3 wrote

Couldn’t you argue a cellphone And access to Uber is more than reasonable as an avenue for getting home?

8

Austoman t1_j503c0n wrote

You couldnt assume an intoxicated person would make the decision of using the phone or calling a taxi/uber. It is on the provider to do that, which is a 60 second process for a sober person to do.

Basically if they are intoxicated they are deemed to not be of sound mind and therefore you cannot assume that they would make a reasonable decision (such as calling a cab) to get home safely. Therefore the onus is on the provider to make that call.

19

imregrettingthis t1_j503js3 wrote

This makes sense in the context of the law. Thanks for taking the time to answer my question

5

Kelmon80 t1_j506w75 wrote

That's just insane to me. No-one "got her drunk". She ordered the drinks. Glad that this lawsuit would be loughed out of our courts.

5

Austoman t1_j5097w3 wrote

Yes she made the choice to buy alcohol, but the provider supplied it to her at their location. If she got drunk at home, went to the venue, was kicked out and crashed then thatd all be on her. But the venue provider her alcohol, enough for her to become intoxicated thus changing her from a person capable of making her own decisions reasonably to a person unable to reasonably make her own decisions (with regards to her safety and the safety of those around her). The moment that switch occurs her safety and those around her are the responsibility of the provider and removing her from the venue/location requires a safe/reasonable means of transportation. Its the same reason you cant just drop a drunk person off on the highway. Its unsafe for them and those around them. Its also the same line of logic for why an intoxicated person cant consent. They are unable to make soind decisions regarding their own safety. So, you cant kick someone out of location after getting them drunk only to have them drive a vehicle.

Its one of the bigger reason why bars take peoples keys when they order a drink.

5

TerribleIdea27 t1_j50aqn8 wrote

>Its one of the bigger reason why bars take peoples keys when they order a drink.

That's a thing in the US?!

0

joleme t1_j50i071 wrote

I've never seen it before in my life. I have seen bartenders snatch keys from regulars they know after the person is drunk.

8

TankSparkle t1_j518uag wrote

Don't think so. The poster you replied to said he was in Ontario.

2

___zero__cool___ t1_j50s4vj wrote

Not at all. I think the person you relied to might just be an alcoholic who always just gets their keys taken away at a bar their a regular at lol.

1

nyrB2 t1_j51599s wrote

how would they have prevented her from driving?

10

Actually-Yo-Momma t1_j52mzaj wrote

Obviously before serving anyone in a dark concert venue, they should give out breathalyzer tests to ensure they’re mentally fit to have another drink!!!

3

nyrB2 t1_j52rktr wrote

lol sounds like that's what they have to do in ontario

2

Abrahamlinkenssphere t1_j500cts wrote

Wow so this asshole is likely to just walk away rich as fuck for ruining a bunch of lives?

6

Qbr12 t1_j503y5u wrote

Unless Canadian law is vastly different from America, she's isn't going to become rich as fuck. The most she could win would be the amount of damages she suffered. That's only $15 million here because she caused $15 million in damage to others. Anything she wins is going to go straight to paying for that.

23

Caldren57 t1_j526rs6 wrote

Look, here's a big question. At such a concert venue, is there more than 1 bar in the hall, stadium, whatever? So a young lady can go to several bar set ups and get a drink? And now think with your other head and figure a pretty girl, almost drunk, at a concert, and you don't buy her a drink? Really? All she had to do was flirt, and the drinks kept coming. It was her fault, she could've called for a ride. Nope she chose to drive.

1

Raevix t1_j52jrs6 wrote

If a relatively sober guy purchased the drink for her and server couldn't reasonapbly know it was for the drunk girl, then yes the server is off the hook. But now the guy buying the drink is in the same potential legal jeopardy the server would be.

I'm not trying to suggest these laws are fair. They are just the laws that exist.

1

AmericanKamikaze t1_j52s8wp wrote

Can a bartender defend by saying “I couldn’t not tell she was drunk.”?

IMHO INALProsecutors would first have to find the particular bartender that over served her and prove that he knew she was drunk and decided to overserve her anyway.

1

Raevix t1_j52wr5k wrote

Nope. They can run the math of the sales and her blood alcohol during the crash and say she was definitely drunk when you sold to her and you should have known even if you didn't.

Yes, really

Edit: Yes a minimum wage employee at a grocery store is required to correctly determine if a customer is drunk based on a ten second interaction while selling one beer under penalty of jail time

2

Allhellforatreefort t1_j53dx6k wrote

Eh, she has to prove that they did it and not her hitting it hard before the concert or in the parking lot after getting kicked out.

I don't see this as a slam dunk.

0