Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

StreetofChimes t1_j5el6m5 wrote

Reply to comment by AUniquePerspective in A woman who got wasted at a Marilyn Manson concert blew up $15 million worth of property. She's suing the company that served her. by end_of_rainbow

In the US, the woman would have a case. I used to tend bar. It is the bartender's responsibility to cut people off if they are getting drunk.

It is actually pretty scary. I once had a patron climb over the bar and take a drink. When I took it back (because that is way illegal), I was fired because the guy was super rich. I know a bartender who cut someone off. That person came back at closing and shot the bartender twice. Bartender survived, thankfully.

80

afunyun t1_j5ey04v wrote

Read the article, she's not suing because they over-served her. She's suing because they STOPPED serving her and kicked her out of the venue, and she claims they should've taken "steps to ensure she would not drive home."

Basically saying by cutting her off and kicking her out it's somehow their fault because they should've known she was an idiot who would then drive home... trying to extend their liability to actions she took AFTER they removed her from their premises as if they owed her a personal babysitter to accompany her and make sure she didn't drive.

52

HouseOfSteak t1_j5g3s60 wrote

Given the jurisdiction.....she'd very well have a case.

SmartServe training in Ontario teaches you that you're liable for a customer's safety right up until they're sober. Even if you call a cab, get them home, and they trip over a their own porch and smack their head against the doorstep.

It's kinda over-the-top, but them's really the rules.

​

It doesn't excuse criminal behaviour or fines related to such, of course. But there are fines for the establishment, and they do suck.

7

mjtwelve t1_j5grsjj wrote

Smart serve training and what a civil suit would actually find are not necessarily the same thing.

11

HouseOfSteak t1_j5gsrvm wrote

For sure.

A lack of proper evidence can cause problems for civil suits, even if that's what actually happened.

2

afunyun t1_j5g4aa9 wrote

That's crazy. I'm sure she'd be suing for some sort of false imprisonment if they stopped serving her and then detained her on the premises to make sure she didn't hurt anyone after leaving. Seems like a lose-lose for the venue.

9

HouseOfSteak t1_j5g6h7p wrote

Ideally, the venue should not allow you to become intoxicated at all and should - lightly and politely - cut you off or slow you down the moment they get an idea that you're starting to get tipsy.

The venue and server has already made a mistake if the customer is not sober, everything after that is effectively damage control via persuasion and a line with the police (remember, public intoxication is illegal) before they can do something stupid.

​

It's a definitely a difficult situation to manage.

2

ghengiscostanza t1_j5gp668 wrote

> she's not suing because they over-served her. She's suing because they STOPPED serving her

You’re kinda deliberately framing that wrong with this quoted part and I feel like you know that. Over-serving is central to it, they had already over-served her.

They invited a guest to drive to their venue and park in their parking, then sold her their alcohol until she was out of her mind, then when she was peak hammered they said ok get out of here right now!

People get mad about this because they think “it’s her fault what about personal responsibility” but think about it from society/the people in the damaged neighborhood’s point of view. Sure that individual idiot deserves blame and punishment and liability but what about this big corporate entity undeniably enabling and arguably encouraging idiots to do this, they surely should answer at least in part for bringing this shit to the neighborhood.

1