Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

corsicanguppy t1_j5e3xru wrote

Reply to comment by tardcore101 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

Maybe they can change the venue for the suit to be down in America. That kind of responsibility-ducking and carpet-suing is a little embarrassing for us.

54

AUniquePerspective t1_j5ec47a wrote

  1. Over-serving alcohol to a guest is probably more serious in Canada than in the United States of America.

  2. Of course this happened in President's Choice Brand® London.

65

StreetofChimes t1_j5el6m5 wrote

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

orswich t1_j5exxea wrote

Ontario smart serve puts ALL the liability on the server and the establishment.

According to legislation, you as a server are responsible for a patron "until they are sober".. so you can cut them off and stop serving, then take thier keys away and put them in a cab home. But if they get home and decide to get in thier husbands car and crash, the server is gonna get charged.

No personal responsibility at all..

So if you are a guy and you get grabby while drunk, you are on the hook for sexual assault (as you should be) and bear full responsibility. But somehow if you are drunk and decide to drive, you were "too drunk to know better"..

I don't get why the law is different in these scenarios. Maybe too many powerful people drive drunk and don't want to be held accountable?

18

cheezemeister_x t1_j5f3n9e wrote

This isn't really true. Establishments have to take all reasonable steps. They don't have total liability.

4

orswich t1_j5f4wnk wrote

Wish that was so..

Had a local restaurant cut a guy off before he got too drunk. Management made sure he didn't go to his suv and called him a cab.. he refused and walked off the property, only to return later, smoke a joint in his vehicle and then he crashed into a liquor store and died.

To me they tried reasonably to stop him. But the law saw it differently and fined server 10k and establishment around 30k.

It's entirely why even though I am smart serve certified, I won't tend a bar or serve drinks...fuuuuck that

9

sllewgh t1_j5fmjvs wrote

That's too stupid to be believable without proof.

9

BMXTKD t1_j5fqtcn wrote

Why? Because you serve alcohol for a living?

−4

sllewgh t1_j5frgca wrote

I used to, but no, that's not the main reason.

5

FlockFlysAtMidnite t1_j5hv8dh wrote

Because if I told you I was the queen of England, you wouldn't believe me. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to lie over the internet. It's also possible that they entirely misinterpreted a story that did really happen.

Thus, asking for proof.

0

BMXTKD t1_j5hvsig wrote

No, I'm saying this because the contrary seems to be unbelievable. I serve alcohol for a living, and one of the things they drill into our head, is if you over serve someone, you are responsible for everything they do after they leave your venue.

I'm ServSafe certified, and my church is looking into getting me to become an instructor for servsafe,

Nice try though.

0

FlockFlysAtMidnite t1_j5hw6y5 wrote

Yes, you're responsible - to a reasonable degree. The story seems to imply that you are responsible for them without limit, even if they continue to become even more intoxicated elsewhere.

1

AUniquePerspective t1_j5fd7yf wrote

In fact, we join this story already in progress with the individual already having pleaded guilty and taking responsibility for everything but the civil liabilities.

2

CareerMicDrop t1_j5fvq2y wrote

People can show up drunk or smuggle in a flask. I think people should take responsibility for themselves.

3

1800TurdFerguson t1_j5g5qjq wrote

The lead singer of Ontario-based band Single Mothers called London the armpit of the province.

1

StreetofChimes t1_j5ekpl0 wrote

What is carpet suing?

3

Astroglaid92 t1_j5f8s0z wrote

I imagine like carpet bombing? Just cover every square inch (or mm) of the ground beneath you in lawsuits.

1