EightandaHalf-Tails t1_j5d46h1 wrote
I don't know about Canada, but some U.S. states have laws that say it's illegal for a bartender to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated, and if they do keep serving them they can be held civilly liable for any accident that customer later causes. So, they may have a case.
RedRedditor84 t1_j5d5mqs wrote
She's suing them for kicking her out. Says they should have known she'd drive home.
Daratirek t1_j5dbghi wrote
Ya because ride share and taxis aren't a thing. Or cell phones asking for a ride. It's not the venues responsibility to monitor how people come and go.
GMN123 t1_j5e3en0 wrote
Lol, she's gonna lose.
hetfield151 t1_j5e7lbw wrote
So bars need cells now? Every one above 3 drinks has to stay in a cell until they are sober?
[deleted] t1_j5e2x8q wrote
[removed]
gotacogo t1_j5d5gde wrote
Read the article. The venue cut her off and kicked her out.
This is the stated reason for the lawsuit.
>According to the CBC, Leis and her father are accusing Ovations Ontario Food Services of having no regard for her "intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired."
jfcmfer t1_j5d9eyi wrote
If that's what happened, she'll probably get a settlement cause I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this. I do wonder though, was she all alone when they booted her?
Maatix t1_j5dgtsi wrote
>I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this.
There's no chance they settle, because there's no chance they lose.
The bar doesn't have a responsibility to make sure you have a safe way home. Legally speaking, you're required to know your way home before getting blackout wasted, so the bar CAN'T reliably serve anyone if they have to confirm you have a safe way home first. Anyone in that situation could just lie and leave MASSIVE legal repercussions with the bar.
Theoretical question: If the bar didn't kick her out, how would she have gotten home? Was she just not planning to leave all night? No obviously not - She had plans to drive. If she apparently had no other way home, she wasn't going to suddenly become LESS wasted by drinking more. Theoretically speaking, they could have kept her in the bar, but that makes her a nuisance to other customers, especially if she's just going to complain about wanting to drink and try to leave when she can't get more drinks. They can't legally detain her.
Not a single part of her claim places the onus of the explosion on the bar. The bar acted responsibly and stopped her from drinking when she appeared too drunk. They have no obligation to safely see her home in addition to stopping her from drinking, they can't say "No you're not going anywhere, you're too drunk," because they don't have the right to detain anyone - And no, she absolutely did not have to drive home, she could have called a friend, a family member, a cab, an uber - There are many options in this day and age that you're expected to consider BEFORE drinking, which she clearly did not.
SHE acted irresponsibly by having no way home after drinking heavily. DUI falls on the driver, not on the person who served the driver.
jfcmfer t1_j5dmcie wrote
That's a great explanation on why I'm wrong. Thanks, I hadn't thought of those angles.
Raevix t1_j5dmf2i wrote
Maatix t1_j5dnknu wrote
Now that you've linked it, do you want to point to any part of it that is against my claim?
If you're suggesting they didn't offer her subsidized taxi's, or didn't recommend taxi usage, that's going to come down to a he-said-she-said situation. She will obviously claim they didn't offer - They will obviously claim they did offer. Without proof of guilt, the bar will not be held responsible. We don't know if it was or wasn't offered.
If you're suggesting they didn't "inform guests that intoxicated persons will be put into taxi's," again, that's going to be a he-said-she-said. Obviously, she's going to say they didn't inform her a taxi was an option. Obviously, they're going to say they did offer a taxi. Again, without proof of guilt, the bar cannot be legally held responsible.
They can't force her to take options they offer, and at no point is the bar required to ensure a leaving guest takes a specific mode of transportation. Once again, they cannot be held legally responsible for her drunken decision to get in her car and drive when she knows she shouldn't. She still had the option to call for another ride, if she really didn't want to utilize their services offered. (Which we can't KNOW were offered, but seem very likely to have been offered in my opinion.)
Lastly, her two claims are opposite one another. She claims they shouldn't have let her leave because she appeared too drunk and must have been ignorant of that fact AND the fact that she was driving home - But also, claims they continued to serve her despite looking too drunk. Let's remind everyone here, she was kicked out because they stopped serving her because she appeared too drunk, and she caused a scene over it. She only got kicked out in the first place because the bar was very well aware of how drunk she was and stopped serving her because of it.
Everything she's claimed is dubious at best, and ultimately comes down to presuming the bar did EVERYTHING wrong with no evidence, and not the drunk person who got behind the wheel of a vehicle knowing they'd just gotten kicked out of a bar for being too drunk.
Raevix t1_j5dom9v wrote
Nope, I don't want to point anything out.
I just saw a lot of people talking about what will or won't happen in this thread and what is or isn't legal and not a single person citing or quoting sources so I thought I'd dump those links there so people can use them if they felt like it or just read them and form their own conclusions. I just replied to you specifically because I assume this is the thread that's going to get the most attention.
Maatix t1_j5dp5af wrote
Got it, my bad. Hard to read intent on the ninternets.
Fast_Bodybuilder_496 t1_j5dp54c wrote
I know the laws exist, but I never could get behind the idea that the bartender is somehow responsible for the patrons drunken actions
hetfield151 t1_j5e7nug wrote
Yeah its so stupid. If you cant handle alcohol, you mustnt be drinking at all.
Sure_Trash_ t1_j5elrvo wrote
I get it to an extent. If someone is slurring and sloppy drunk, serving them more alcohol is irresponsible. You don't know what they're going to do but you do know their decision making is thoroughly impaired so cutting them off makes sense. Some people act almost perfectly normal even when drunk though so it's not like they can be responsible for everyone they serve.
Fast_Bodybuilder_496 t1_j5fa85h wrote
Your last sentence is the part that gets me the most- you don't have to be sloppy and slurring drunk to be dangerous behind the wheel of a car. Frankly, if legislators want to prosecute bartenders for over serving patrons and hold them accountable for whatever the patrons go on to do in their drunken state, they should just ban alcohol outright. I can't think of any other scenario in which we hold someone legally accountable for another adult's consensual actions outside of committing a crime.
skeletaldecay t1_j5ddo0k wrote
Also intentional actions like suicide and murder. They can go after the bartender/server and restaurant.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments