She WHAT?

What the fuck?

Edit: I read the article. This woman is nuts. She went to a Marilyn Manson Concert, got drunk and apparently got kicked out of the concert. She then drove and crashed into a house which caused an explosion that injured seven people and destroyed FOUR houses. She pled guilty and got sentenced to three years but she's suing Ovations Ontario Food Services because they kept serving her while she was drunk and they didn't stop her from driving drunk when she got kicked out so her and her dad figured they should be liable too. Absolute nuts.

[deleted]

A long time ago I made a conscious decision to try to say toxic stuff like this less often, but here it feels justified: the world would've been significantly better off had she died in that crash.

I think this would make a great movie tbh

You think she might have a drinking problem?

In many places a venue that continues to serve someone who is clearly drunk is legally liable for the drunks behavior. I don't know the law in California but this is not necessarily a frivolous lawsuit.

Typically 3rd parties can sue a drunk driver, but a drunk driver is not allowed to recover her own damages in this situation. But this happened in Florida I guess so all bets are off.

Edit: LOL Canada not Florida somehow. Same principle should apply.

No, it happened in Ontario

Looks like she still hasn't sobered up

See my edit. But she has a Florida state of mind.

I don’t know. I mean, who hasn’t gotten so trashed that they accidentally blew up a house? /s

EDIT - changed verb tense

Can’t disagree with you there

Repost

[deleted]

They did stop serving her. They threw her out.

The world would be a better place if she crashed and died.

It clearly was too late and perhaps they should have taken her car keys. I really don't know, wasn't there.

That would've been theft? I mean you can't go around grabbing other people's car keys off of them just because you think it's the right thing to do, we'd have nobody left on the road

They should have asked for her car keys. If she refuses to give them up then they no longer have legal liability. If they didn't ask for her keys they may have some liability.

-.- no one wants to take responsibility of their own actions. Someone else is accountable.

Well remember, Americans have to be micromanaged with seat belt laws, and Kinder Egg Warnings. Because they can't possibly handle life outside the US. They'd won't last a week. And that stupid bitch is gonna put Canada in the same boat. Everything right down the Kinder Egg will have to be liable for something that is Not the company's problem. No one's fault that they can't control themselves but their own. Blaming someone else only leads to needless laws to be made so another incident never happens again. And yes the US did Ban Kinder Eggs (the best ones) because one parent was too lazy to supervise a child and choked. Leaving us with more stupid people to survive and thus creating this nation that we know today.

"tonlarty" means what?

She was adopted.

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)

Actually the article says this happened in Ontario and they have pretty major liquor liability laws. Hosts of an event (bar, concert, house party, work party) where alcohol is served have a duty of care to guests *until the intoxicated person sobers up*, including not letting them get too wasted, trying to convince intoxicated them not to drive, helping them find a safe way home, and calling 911 if they do try to drive.

So, technically they couldn't literally wrestle the keys from the woman but under Ontario law there is a strong chance they will be seen to have some liability for what she did after leaving the venue.

>they kept serving her while she was drunk

She might have a case

[deleted]

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.

Bro we get it…you want a kinder egg

O uO And I wish not wear my seat belt knowing well what outcomes may happen if I don't. I should be entitled to make my own decisions without them turning me into a criminal all because I refuse to keep myself safe. And where's that damn KinderEgg!

Kinder egg = only hurting yourself with disappointment. Seatbelt? Now you are costing ME money to publicly fund your treatment for stupidity after getting in a wreck. You playing for all bills yourself, then there's no problems.

Not the concert's fault. She should be suing the dynamite maker.

If they kept serving her after she was already drunk then that is actually largely on them for what happened as a result. Not saying that it eliminates her responsibility entirely. But if you're drunk, you are objectively not in a state to make any kind of reasonable decision. That's kind of why there are laws everywhere that put a legal burden on an establishment not to serve people like that.

I work very briefly in the food industry and asides from washing their hands this is one of the number one things they drive into your head. Businesses that are licensed to serve alcohol take this stuff extremely seriously for good reason. The legal liability is huge.

People have kind of gotten to the point where alcohol gets treated like it's harmless. It's not. It's actually not. It's a mind-altering substance. It's fine if used responsibly! But part of the responsibility is that whomever is providing it needs to also be responsible.

The explosion was just kind of a freak thing.

holy shit I'm stupid to not have seen that but thanks

The financial collapse of 2008 was caused by Wall Street. Trillions wiped out and millions of retirements destroyed. No one went to jail and they actually got bonuses and tax payer bailouts.

But if someone gets drunk and fucks up, the bar tender could be personally liable.

I'm so tired of this dystopian shitscape.

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.

Even if you are paying your own bills, a no-seatbelt-driver-took-a-ballistic-path-through-the-windshield-and-into-the-grill-of-the-oncoming-truck accident will require a full freeway shutdown and hours of investigation and cost tens of thousands of people time and the local agencies’ time and money to deal with, instead of a much simpler no-fatality crash.

It’s the same argument in favor of motorcycle helmet laws. Not wanting to wear a helmet doesn’t bother me (though I think motorcycle licenses should be organ donor opt-out instead of opt-in by default) but when your scalp is shaved down to gray matter or your skull and a road sign attempt to occupy the same space, the extra effort to deal with that affects everyone else.

This message brought to you by the Bar Association

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

Why should you go to jail for a crime somebody else noticed? You don't need double-talk; you need Bob Loblaw.

drrpen sperngs

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).

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

The fact she can legally win this case and not be held liable, makes you think they might change the laws related to this Right?..... Right?

Thank fuck. My love for Canada is sustained.

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.

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

That's a thing in the US?!

Would also be even better if personal responsibility was still promoted in NA. The fact someone can be so completely reckless and even has a chance to get away with it legally is mind numbing.

[deleted]

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

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.

[deleted]

Those laws were put into effect right after prohibition. They create extremely broad liability where there's often little or no control.

And God forbid someone face the consequences of their own actions.

People who continue to serve someone who is in no condition to make a rational judgment alcohol for the purpose of profit deserve to be held liable for their grossly negligent actions. People like you pretend like that also somehow means that the person who drank the alcohol is now completely absolved of all responsibility.

No. Everyone involved was at fault to some degree. It's up to the courts to figure out exactly where that fault lies. A lot of people go through life thinking that fault is some kind of 100% 0% fault lies. A lot of people go through life thinking that fault is some kind of 100% 0% game.

And that's an absurdly childish and uselessly simplistic way of looking at things in a situation like this.

People hear that a company might be liable for gross negligence and they like to puff up their chest and act all self-righteous and loudly declare that no one is held responsible for their own actions anymore and it's just the dumbest shit.

Stop.

Legally you're correct, but bartenders don't exactly have the resources or legal authority to take people's keys or drive them home and put them to bed.

Dram shops laws establish liability in scenarios like this and as a rule, they're very old and haven't been updated in forever (think like prohibition). Many places they establish liability even when someone is responsibly served and later continues drinking.

I hate them. Legal liability for other people's actions should not exist.

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.

[removed]

Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

how would they have prevented her from driving?

Boy did you hit the nail on the head! Seatbelts are for suckers. Kinder Eggs are what’s really important/s

whatever happened to the idea of personal responsibility? "it's not MY fault i got way too drunk and then decided to drive!"

​

Most states, I thought, have laws against overserving.

These laws need to be enforced, and if she was overserved, there should be consequences for the servers.

The main problem I see is that it should be the people whose homes she destroyed that are suing.

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

the bars have insurance for this

I hope the jury explains that sympathy can be found between shit and syphilis in the dictionary.

-Knock, Knock!
-Who's there?
-Personal responsibility

A TGI Friday’s in my city was shut down because a women left drunk and died in a car wreck that night.

The bar was sued and it was found TGI Friday’s over served her and on top of that knew she was drunk and let her leave. When the lawsuit was over TGI Friday’s shut down that store and now we only have 1 TGI Friday’s, which isn’t bad news for most.

I wonder was it the drunk woman's estate who sued? Or the other people she harmed?

[removed]

Isn't it great how people are not responsible for their own actions / decisions anymore? It amazes me that people can sure for being stupid and they win.

The bartender is personally liable as well. In fact in some places, the bar owner isn't liable at all.

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

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.

This redditor does local Texas vodka...

She is still liable for her actions, this does not make her not be held liable and won't get her out of jail. This is to see if the venue that served the alcohol is also liable It makes the people who lost their houses possibly get back some of the money they are owed that she most likely does not have. Unless you think the type of person who gets drunk at a concert and blows up houses has 15 million laying around.

It's gonna come down to what specific actions the venue took to stop her from driving away intoxicated, if she was served while already intoxicated and what they did (or didn't do) when she left while being intoxicated. If being drunk in public is a crime than the bartender is an accomplice to each drunk that walks out of the bar.

Stupid

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.

It's the most dumbest thing i could think of as a ban and something simple to survive from. A piece of candy.

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.

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!

Question to Venue, how many bars were set up for the venue? If more than 1, then another no leg to stand on. Who's to say (she is) whether or not she was drunk before, or had alcohol in her car on the way home. And umm she was FORCED to drive home? Does Canada not have Uber or Taxi's? And yet she refuses to take responsibility for her own actions.

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.

The way to do it would be require they turn in the car keys to continue getting drinks - then they need a sober friend to pick up their car keys.

Filing that for the next fishing trip. Cheers

The people whose homes were destroyed don't need to sue the venue because their insurance is holding this woman accountable for the damages. She is suing to try to get the payments she owes to them covered by someone else.

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.

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.

My point is we don't need more laws to protect ourselves from doing dumb shit, like not wearing helmets. It's common sense. The government can't protect everybody from harming ourselves and others during our process of being shot 90 feet into the air and still be a projectile for others to hit. The choices you make determines if you are SMART ENOUGH to continue to be on this planet without the aid of laws, regulations, and also if people were smart enough to know they are accountable of their own actions. And suing others for being too drunk is ridiculous! This can only tighten laws to micromanage the citizens better, because getting sued by a irresponsible person who survived a car crash that they started along with the chaos then after only makes people worry that there should be more regulations. Like how the US keeps regulating guns every time somebody loses their shit. It doesn't do anything. People still shooting each other.The same will go with that problem with her and her inability to take care of herself. If anything, she should be put in foster care for the mentally incompetent. Don't Drink and Drive. Common Sense; shouldn't be a law, but It has to exist because we're too dumb to think for ourselves.

I'd wager she'd sue them for theft if they had done that.

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.

I've been probably about as drunk as a person could be. This seems extreme.

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!!!

I will have you know that I have been drunk at least three times in my life and never blew up a house

Edit: in the grand scheme of things, this might actually be good because it will give her the means to pay for the damages that she caused; even if she wins, she’s not getting rich, she’s just making other people whole.

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

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.

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!

Learned it from a hunting buddy, glad it will survive

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

[deleted]

>She went to a Marilyn Manson Concert

In 2023? A Marilyn Manson Concert? really?

How do they prove she was "overserved"? I might not want to egregiously overpay for drinks, so I stop at the liquor store on my way to the concert, and enter the venue with a belly full of liquor. If I order one drink while I'm still sober, the bartender is liable after I absorb all the ethanol and start wreaking havoc?

[deleted]

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

Checking in from rural Mass, can confirm.

Society has made it so easy to blame others and suing for money than owning your mistakes and accepting the consequences.

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.

Of course, the Bob Loblaw Law Blog

Every Saturday night.

The American way, sue your way out of anything.

I remember when this first happened. We thought it could have been a terrorist attack.

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.

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

You sound like someone who's never been in a bar before. What you're suggesting basically would require a polygraph of all customers without sober company after 2 beers, maybe even one. Some people take medications such that they get drunk off a single beer. Guess the bartender is supposed to know that through omniscience on your view?

Forget a bar, I dunno if youve been off reddit and in the real world ever.

if another poster is correct (forgot their name), the food vendor is in fact legally liable for the damages under ontario law

Then, you guys can't consume alcohol responsibly. Don't come to America for booze when your PM takes a BM on your lives.