Should bartenders be liable for its drunk customers?

[Honeykiss1974]

Bartender jailed for lethal tequila

Wednesday, November 23, 2005; Posted: 9:46 a.m. EST (14:46 GMT)

OSLO, Norway (AP) -- A 32-year-old Norwegian bartender was sentenced to six months in prison Wednesday for serving a customer so much tequila that he fell into a coma and died.

According to a district court in the southwestern city of Hokksund the bartender, whose name was withheld, pleaded guilty to serving 34-year-old Leif Henning Nilsen 19 shots of the strong Mexican liquor in 90 minutes at the Spiseriet restaurant in May 2004.

Nilsen lost consciousness and died three days later.

The court said it could not hold the bartender accountable for the death itself, but sentenced him to prison for illegally serving alcohol to a clearly intoxicated person.

The ruling said the bartender intentionally contributed to the excess by drinking shots of water, tricking the victim into what he thought was a drinking contest.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe....ap/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think most of us (either in college or at some other point) have been to bars celebrating with lots of alcohol and have ended up drunk. Let's say in that drunken state, something bad happens (ex. car accident, fight, death, etc.).

Should bartenders be liable for the actions of its customers?

[KSigkid]

In Massachusetts, there has been a lot of talk on DUI legislation after a recent piece called "Melanie's Bill" was passed. It imposed tougher restrictions on drunk drivers, but there was other discussion on what to do about bartenders and establishments that serve to visibly drunk patrons. Some lawmakers (and members of the legal community) feel that it's a necessary next step, holding establishments liable for alcohol-related problems.

Personally, I think it would be difficult to prove guilt in a lot of cases; how do you pinpoint the drink that put someone over the limit? If someone was at several places, where were they when they had the fateful drink?

Is there legislation like this in any places? I think this could come up as a major topic here in Massachusetts very soon.

[AlphaFrog]

People, drunk are not, are responsible for themselves. I don't care how drunk someone is, if they drink themselves into a coma and die, it is their fault (unless someone is forcing them to drink). If you can't handle your booze, don't drink or get help. You cannot 100% protect a person from themselves.

[DeltAlum]

There are numerous cases where bars have been found liable for accidents caused by patrons after they left the bar.

That's why there is such a push among many Greek organizations for third party vendors and the like. In the end, even a third party vendor may not totally protect an organization from lawsuits, but it probably does spread the liability around.

Unfortunately, whether fair or not -- and who should have ultimate responsibility -- that's the way juries and courts have seen it.

[Kevin]

If you're a bartender, and you don't know that giving someone 19 shots is going to eff them up pretty bad, then you probably are too dumb to be a bartender. Given that bartenders generally have an idea when a patron is drunk, and reasonably should know to stop serving somewhere before that 19th shot, I'd say that the bartender should be held liable. In fact, in the U.S., unless a statute protected them, I'd almost be willing to guarantee there's a liability there.

In Norway though, I have no clue.

[Jill1228]

In WA state, they are really strict on this. Anyone who serves liquor (ie bartender, waiter, etc) must be licenced to serve it. Yes you have to have a liquor card, take test and know the laws about serving alcohol and knowing when to cut the folx off. If you work in a grocery store, you cannot sell beer or wine to someone who is already under the influence. You can be fined, jailed and lose your job

[ADqtPiMel]

Who do you sue when someone dies as a result of drinking at home? The keg?

In seriousness though, serving someone 19 shots in 90 minutes is stupid.

[Honeykiss1974]

I can remember back to my college days of going out to a club that had 25 cents Tequila shots. There was usually 5 of us, each ordering about $5 worth. If we were all buying these for one person, the bartender wouldn't know.

Is this case really any different than the man that sued McDonalds for making him obese? I laughed at the thought of it, but in all seriousness is this really that different?

[tunatartare]

I think that yes they should. If someone keeps on coming up to you all night buying drinks, you have a pretty good idea of when they get drunk and should stop serving them. Bars are private businesses and do have the right to refuse to serve someone. One of my housemates is a bartender, and what she usually does is that when really drunk girls come up to her and order drinks, she just won't put any more alcohol in them.

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by KLPDaisy
I think that yes they should. If someone keeps on coming up to you all night buying drinks, you have a pretty good idea of when they get drunk and should stop serving them. Bars are private businesses and do have the right to refuse to serve someone. One of my housemates is a bartender, and what she usually does is that when really drunk girls come up to her and order drinks, she just won't put any more alcohol in them.

It's not always possible for a bartender to keep an eye on every single person they are serving.

In a busy bar on a Saturday night, the bartenders will often be so busy that they don't pay too much attention to the person they are serving (in a place that is 21 and up).... And they see so many faces in such a short amount of time, it could easily be hard for them to recognize one and remember how many times that person has been to the bar.

AND, it also doesn't take into account bar hopping.... Someone may have gone to 6 different bars in an hour or 2, and taken 18 shots.... Then they go to bar #7 and someone orders them one drink that puts them way over the top. How can that possibly be the bartender's fault?

I think this is a time when people need to be able to take care of themselves and/or trust their friends to do so.... Don't look for someone else to blame.

I think the bartender probably should not have served the person so much.... But I don't think he is responsible for the person's death.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by KLPDaisy
I think that yes they should. If someone keeps on coming up to you all night buying drinks, you have a pretty good idea of when they get drunk and should stop serving them. Bars are private businesses and do have the right to refuse to serve someone. One of my housemates is a bartender, and what she usually does is that when really drunk girls come up to her and order drinks, she just won't put any more alcohol in them.

This also forces iffy judgement calls on the part of the bartender - essentially you are determining liability based upon a 'skill' (reading the approximate level of danger to the person being served, using only brief inspection from across the bar) in what is essentially an unskilled profession.

It's a rough precedent to set, because while it's obvious that the bartender in this case went way too far (and was somewhat aware it was f-ed up, w/ the water shots and all), most cases will not be that cut and dry. Keep in mind that peoples' reactions to alcohol vary wildly, which is why roadside sobriety tests (which are routinely challenged) are oftentimes being replaced by BAC breath tests, etc. To ask a bartender to make this sort of judgement call, under potential penalty of law, seems a bit . . . much.

Also, think about this: while you consider your friend's actions to be liability-reducing, if they're ordering, say, Rum and Coke and she's just giving them Coke, the soda may have a dehydrating effect and contribute (in some small part) to injury. Is she liable for that? Did she know that? Of course not, because she's a bartender - not any sort of expert on body language, nursing/health care, or anything else. She can make shots. That's it. Bartender.

[Lindz928]

Originally posted by KSig RC
It's a rough precedent to set, because while it's obvious that the bartender in this case went way too far (and was somewhat aware it was f-ed up, w/ the water shots and all), most cases will not be that cut and dry.

I agree with you here.

[Coramoor]

Hell no they shouldn't be liable.

The person drinking is the one making the choice to do so. If they are so drunk that they don't know what they are doing...then why are they buying more drinks?

Sometimes my friends and I go out to the bar for the sole purpose of getting hammered. It's not uncommon to take 20+ shots, and I'd be pissed off if the bartender stopped serving me. It's my money it's my choice in how I want to spend it.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by Coramoor
Hell no they shouldn't be liable.

But in many cases they have been ruled liable. That's the way it is. Should or shouldn't doesn't count.

Even companies have been held liable if an employee has an accident going home from a company party.

It seems to be a new legal principle -- throw as much...uh...mud at the wall as you can and see how much sticks.

[Tom Earp]

There have been many accounts where a Club or Bar Tender is found Libel fo over serving someone who leaves DUI/DWI and kills someone on the way Home or themselves. So where does the Money Come into play? Oh, Lets Sue them at the Bar and The Bar Tender who may have given the Drinks to someone else and they then took them to the person. Any Bar Tender I knew would cut them off. Where were their Friends who Kept supplying them with Alcohol?

The Moralistic More's have change so much to day! I am Going To Sue Someone!

Well, because of the Our Federal Govt. have so decided what all of the Morals are for us, We cannot do Shit. If We violate said Laws, the Legals will be there to take care of everything.

Sickening at the Most!