Voyeur wrote:
But at least we can all agree that one ambulance-chasing law firm, presumably working on a no-win-no-fee will waste hundreds of hours on a case doomed to be tossed out at the first hearing, no?

I hate to see mommy and daddy fighting like this...

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Sigh, well I tried. This is why I generally don't respond to you. You are too dull to comprehend what I'm saying.

For anyone else with a sharper intellect, the TL;DR is there's a broad concept called "dram shop" laws which allow a bar to be sued for serving an obviously intoxicated person. But there are two types of these cases. The majority of states which have dram shop laws ONLY allow "third party" actions. This means an innocent victim such as victims of drunk driving may sue the bar. Most of the states in Pebble's link only allow for third party actions.

That's not the case here, and that doesn't implicate personal responsibility. Because a victim is not responsible for getting hit by a drunk driver.

The second type of case is called a "first party" action. This means the drunk himself, or his family, can sue the bar. It's the cash grab at issue here. Most states do not allow for such a lawsuit to be brought, as my link explained. It is only a few states which do, such as "progressive" NJ.

You don't reply because you aren't smart enough to...

1939: Lawsuit file where bar was held responsible for getting someone drunk. FACT.

Alabama law quoted stating: bar is held responsible. FACT.

You want to keep blaming liberals? Be my guest. Everyone knows you're a clown. Seriously, sit in a bar and ask anyone that's been on this site. That is, of course, if you have any friends...

I'd never associate with someone as dull as you in my personal life. An ignorant know it all, the absolute worst combination, lol.

And there's not much need to blame "progressives" generally, because as I said, most states do not allow these type of lawsuits. Here's another link btw, intended for a more intelligent audience:

"Most states do not allow first party dram shop cases."

http://legaldictionary.net/dram-shop-act/

And this is really a sidetrack anyway. The central issue here is blame on the family that brought such a shameless cash grab. Sure I blame the "progressives" in NJ for being one of the few states in the country to allow such a lawsuit, but the primary blame lays with the family.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Sigh, well I tried. This is why I generally don't respond to you. You are too dull to comprehend what I'm saying.

For anyone else with a sharper intellect, the TL;DR is there's a broad concept called "dram shop" laws which allow a bar to be sued for serving an obviously intoxicated person. But there are two types of these cases. The majority of states which have dram shop laws ONLY allow "third party" actions. This means an innocent victim such as victims of drunk driving may sue the bar. Most of the states in Pebble's link only allow for third party actions.

That's not the case here, and that doesn't implicate personal responsibility. Because a victim is not responsible for getting hit by a drunk driver.

The second type of case is called a "first party" action. This means the drunk himself, or his family, can sue the bar. It's the cash grab at issue here. Most states do not allow for such a lawsuit to be brought, as my link explained. It is only a few states which do, such as "progressive" NJ.

You don't reply because you aren't smart enough to...

1939: Lawsuit file where bar was held responsible for getting someone drunk. FACT.

Alabama law quoted stating: bar is held responsible. FACT.

You want to keep blaming liberals? Be my guest. Everyone knows you're a clown. Seriously, sit in a bar and ask anyone that's been on this site. That is, of course, if you have any friends...

JCMan8 wrote:
Sigh, well I tried. This is why I generally don't respond to you. You are too dull to comprehend what I'm saying.

For anyone else with a sharper intellect, the TL;DR is there's a broad concept called "dram shop" laws which allow a bar to be sued for serving an obviously intoxicated person. But there are two types of these cases. The majority of states which have dram shop laws ONLY allow "third party" actions. This means an innocent victim such as victims of drunk driving may sue the bar. Most of the states in Pebble's link only allow for third party actions.

That's not the case here, and that doesn't implicate personal responsibility. Because a victim is not responsible for getting hit by a drunk driver.

The second type of case is called a "first party" action. This means the drunk himself, or his family, can sue the bar. It's the cash grab at issue here. Most states do not allow for such a lawsuit to be brought, as my link explained. It is only a few states which do, such as "progressive" NJ.

JCMan8 wrote:
Pebble, this was a nice try. A step up from the typical utter lack of reading comprehension, and you actually forced me to do some research to back up what I consider to be common sense.

Here is what you said: "These laws are on the books everywhere."

Where I said "I bet there are plenty of conservative states which would not allow this type of lawsuit."

Obviously only one of us can be right. But first, as is typical, you didn't comprehend what I was saying. Laws are not written by God, they are written by Legislatures. The Legislatures in most states are generally either conservative or liberal. Since this type of law (allowing a drunk person to sue the bar that gave him alcohol) is rooted in a lack of personal responsibility, I said I bet most conservative states (with conservative Legislatures) would never pass such a law.

Pointing to the NFL case is irrelevant, as it occurred in NJ, a state dominated by Democrats which pass laws in accordance with "progressive" policy. I don't care what political affiliation the Pychs are because it is irrelevant to what I am saying.

Now, I found this legal encyclopedia which explained these type of laws are called dramshop acts. But there is a distinction between a dramshop act that allows an innocent victim of drunk driving to sue the bar vs. allowing the actual drunk driver (or his family) to sue. The latter is what I have a HUGE problem with.

I will quote the relevant passage:

What is a "Dram Shop" case?

So, a dram shop case is a lawsuit against a bar, restaurant, liquor store, or any other type of business that sells alcoholic drinks. The establishment's liability in these kinds of cases is based on the fact that someone was served too much alcohol.

There are two types of dram shop cases, what are called ?first party? dram shop cases and what are called ?third party? dram shop cases. With the caveat that most states don't allow ?first party? dram shop cases, let?s look at these two types of cases in a little more detail.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedi ... hol-related-accident.html

So there is your answer. Most states do not allow the type of shameless, money grubbing lawsuit brought here. It is against the law. Apparently more allow innocent victims to sue, but that is not what we are talking about here. Obviously an innocent victim bears no personal responsibility for a drunk driving accident.

Since most states are conservative (middle America), my statement correctly bet that they would not allow this type of lawsuit. Of the few that do (such as NJ and Vermont), I would bet that most, if not all, are "progressive" enclaves. If you find a list of those states please post, but your original list included the irrelevant third party actions.

Now if you were born yesterday, you might think the link between the few states which allow such lawsuits and the political ideology of their Legislatures is some kind of crazy coincidence, but most of us should know better.

Twenty-two of the 30 states statutorily limit the liability to cases where the establishment sold or served alcohol to an obviously intoxicated individual or a person under the legal drinking age.

The 22 states are Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Statutes in Louisiana exempt licensed establishments from liability except in the cases where they serve a person under the legal drinking age. Nevada and South Dakota exempt licensed establishments from liability.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
I love the fact that numero 8 finds a way to work "progressive" into this as if it is the fault of liberals.

These laws are on the books everywhere. They have been on the books for decades. The fact is, if I get drunk at a bar and hit another car on the way home then the bar absolutely can be held liable. The problem is in proving whether or not the bar knowingly served someone that was clearly intoxicated. This does not absolve me, absolutely, in blame but it adds a second party to those that are liable. The same laws apply if you have someone over your house, they get hammered and then leave.

The parents, in their grief and likely in their belief that their son has never done anything wrong, is going after the bar. I know many, many other people (including my own parents) that wouldn't.

I don't think the parents should be suing. However, every bar runs this tightrope daily.

I suggest you go back and reread my original comments. I'm saying, assuming these laws exist, they should be repealed. Along with blaming the family for this cash grab.

If you read, you'll see I also said if this drunk driver hit someone else, then I would be ok (but not thrilled) if those victims could sue the bar. But my HUGE problem is when the drunk guy himself (or his family) can sue the bar for his own conduct. Absolutely this law should be repealed.

And yes, it is my opinion that these laws are consistent with a "progressive" ideology. If they've supposedly been on the books for decades, so what? NJ has been dominated by liberals for decades. Same with Vermont, who User cited. I'm not saying every "progressive" fits in with every tenant of their ideology, but personal responsibility is generally part of a conservative mindset, while "progressives" hate the concept and like to blame others.

I bet there are plenty of conservative states which would not allow this type of lawsuit. So yes, I can point to political ideologies behind the laws.

And everything about allowing a drunk driver (or his family) suing the bar that gave him too much alcohol is as far from personal responsibility as you get.

Pebble wrote:
I love the fact that numero 8 finds a way to work "progressive" into this as if it is the fault of liberals.

These laws are on the books everywhere. They have been on the books for decades. The fact is, if I get drunk at a bar and hit another car on the way home then the bar absolutely can be held liable. The problem is in proving whether or not the bar knowingly served someone that was clearly intoxicated. This does not absolve me, absolutely, in blame but it adds a second party to those that are liable. The same laws apply if you have someone over your house, they get hammered and then leave.

The parents, in their grief and likely in their belief that their son has never done anything wrong, is going after the bar. I know many, many other people (including my own parents) that wouldn't.

I don't think the parents should be suing. However, every bar runs this tightrope daily.

Frank_M wrote:

Indeed. Think about what happened.

Think about it from the perspective of a disoriented young man experiencing the terror of drowning. Think about it from the perspective of his family and friends who loved him. Think about it from any perspective where what actually happened, and how people feel about what actually happened, is all that matters.

Frank_M wrote:

Remember the thread you started after the Tianjin port disaster? The only concern you expressed was over Chinese government censorship of the media?old, old news?not the scores of firefighters and other emergency workers who would have certainly perished in the second explosion.

Frank_M wrote
Think about it from the perspective of a disoriented young man experiencing the terror of drowning. Think about it from the perspective of his family and friends who loved him. Think about it from any perspective where what actually happened, and how people feel about what actually happened, is all that matters.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Think about what happened. It's NYE, this guy gets completely plastered...

Indeed. Think about what happened.

Think about it from the perspective of a disoriented young man experiencing the terror of drowning. Think about it from the perspective of his family and friends who loved him. Think about it from any perspective where what actually happened, and how people feel about what actually happened, is all that matters.

Remember the thread you started after the Tianjin port disaster? The only concern you expressed was over Chinese government censorship of the media?old, old news?not the scores of firefighters and other emergency workers who would have certainly perished in the second explosion.

You want to talk about personal responsibility? Try to handle the subjects of pain, death, and loss as a mature, responsible adult.

JCMan8 wrote:
Think about what happened. It's NYE, this guy gets completely plastered...

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Yeah, so it's the bar owner's fault this guy decided to drive while piss drunk, endangering the lives of everyone on the road? And himself obviously.

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY nor do I pretend to play one on TV but aren't there laws on the books forbidding the serving of alcohol to anyone severely intoxicated?It may be very unlikely to prove in court, but I thought this is a liability all bar owners take on and have to be very careful about.

Quote:

The lawsuit accuses employees of the Powerhouse Lounge on Marin Boulevard of continuing to serve Pych alcohol even though they should have realized he was intoxicated. And they "carelessly and negligently" allowed him to leave the lounge while drunk and he died after losing control of his car, the lawsuit alleges.

I wonder if ride sharing services like Uber could severely reduce DUIs in the future...

JCMan8 wrote:
Yeah, so it's the bar owner's fault this guy decided to drive while piss drunk, endangering the lives of everyone on the road? And himself obviously.

The lawsuit accuses employees of the Powerhouse Lounge on Marin Boulevard of continuing to serve Pych alcohol even though they should have realized he was intoxicated. And they "carelessly and negligently" allowed him to leave the lounge while drunk and he died after losing control of his car, the lawsuit alleges.

bill wrote:
One can also speculate if he was speeding, all a barrier would have done is prevent his car from entering the marina, yet he would have most likely flown through the windshield resulting in the same conclusion =(

Vigilante wrote:

Well if he drove through a bench and an orange barricade then he was either wildly out of control or did it on purpose. All evidence is that he did not roll slowly into the river. Whether drowning or horrific crash, it was going to happen either way. Glad no one else was injured.