What happened to accountability???

+1

Good find.

 

Call me crazy but maybe you'd just watch him staggering around with his keys in his hands and heading for the parking lot. Again, IMO the bar knew exactly what was going on. How many celebs did they have in the place? Should this guy be responsible for himself? Yea, but the bar would also know he's alcoholic(or very intoxicated that night) yet let him walk off a cliff. If I ran a place I wouldn't choose to knowingly let that happen. Would you??

"The lawsuit claimed that Hancock was a regular at the restaurant bar and was there for more than 31/2 hours."

"It's understood that for the entire 31/2 hours that Josh Hancock was there that he was handed drinks,"

"It's our understanding that from the moment Josh Hancock entered Mike Shannon's that night that he was never without a drink."

 

Have you ever been to a bar with more than maybe 20-30 people in it? To suggest that the bar tender should keep an eye on everyone, to make sure nobody drives home drunk, is idiotic. Also, chances are a potential drunk driver isn't going to spend 5 minutes staggering around the bars, keys in hand, to let everyone know of their intentions.

 

A tad . Those statements by themselves could still be true if Hancock had nursed two drinks for 3-1/2 hours or had 20 drinks in the same period.

However, more relevant is the BAC of 0.15. For a 200lb male, about 8 drinks achieve a 0.15 BAC, but the body eliminates about 0.015 per hour, or about .05 over 3-1/2 hours. So for a "typical" person, it might take 10-12 drinks over 3-1/2 hours to measure 0.15 BAC. Regardless of how much he showed it, that's a lot of drinks to hand a patron.

Whatever the view on personal responsibility, the fact is our society has already established that bars do have a responsibility to cut patrons off at some point as I know there are bartending courses on recognizing that point. But I still have a problem with Hancock's father blaming everyone else named when they are denying their responsibility for having raised a drunk and for not intervening themselves based on his pattern of behavior.

 

In today's sue-happy society, what happens if you cut someone off and they turn around and sue because you cut them off "because they were black" (or fat, or ugly, or weren't tipping, or whatever)???

How many people who occasionally go to bars have been around that one guy who doesn't know when to quit, and doesn't want to listen to anyone? I see those guys all the time. They are FIIIIINE to drive, they'll say. They get downright angry if you suggest maybe they call a cab. Many guys get downright violent when drunk. Why should a bartender also become a frickin physical enforcer of the law? They shouldn't.

The bar is there to make money. They don't know who is drinking and who is the designated driver. It's not their job to know. I don't think it's reasonable for a bartender to monitor each customer and know when they are drunk and when they are not, and if they will drive, and enforce the laws, etc.

The guy was stupid. He killed himself. Luckily he didn't take anyone else with him. The father should sue himself for not instilling enough smarts in his kid not to drink and drive.

 

The guy's a celebrity not some schmo that they have no clue who he is. Plus, he frequented the place. If the bar had cut the guy off or got one of their people to drive him home or called the cops, none of this would have happened. They didn't do any of that, now they'll pay a huge price. Wouldn't a, "hey Charlie, give us your keys because these big bruisers won't let you drive" have been a better option? It's not too hard to understand that logic is it?

 

Why are they getting sued then if it's so clear cut? This could be the precedent setting case that changes things. I think they do have a responsibility to monitor customer drinking. Sure you can claim it's the lush who's had too many and it's his fault, but tell that to some guy who's twice the limit. A guy like this is a disaster waiting to happen and danger to society unless someone steps in. Who's the most likely candidate to step in? It's the bar who's license is on the line. This is no different then serving under agers. The law is pretty clear cut if you're serving a minor and who gets nailed if you do. Almost all places wouldn't even think of risking their license unless their patrons are of age.

 

Because the person suing them is a moron, and doing everything he can to take blame away from his drunk, high, speeding, cell phone talking son?

 

I missed the statute you posted the first time, so if that is the statute in MO, then perhaps a bar in MO is not liable. In California, and many other states, there would be some responsibility.

http://liquor.legalview.com/wikipedia/Dram_Shop/

(I'm not endorsing whether there should or shouldn't be responsibility, just reporting the direction things seem to be headed).