Should bartenders be liable for its drunk customers?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
But in many cases they have been ruled liable.

Cites, please, so we can address these beyond the generalities you're dealing in.

Currently, my knowledge is that in the overwhelming amount of these situations (and note that greek life falls outside of these, usually), individuals serving alcohol in bars have only been found liable when they performed some sort of outlandish action (lighting the bar on fire, lying about content/quantity, participating in 'games' such as the shots of water) beyond simply serving someone who later died.

[hoosier]

Some states have "Dram Shop Laws" making the bar/bartender liable if they over serve a customer. In response, the bars buy "Dram Shop Insurance" which protects them from liability. The cost of the insurance is passed along to the customers in higher drink and food prices. IL is an example of this.

We had an interesting case here in GA this fall. A 7-11 type store refused to sell booze to an obviously drunk guy. He was too drunk to even pump his own gas, so an employee pumped it. The drunk did something bad on the highway, and the store and employee lost in court for pumping gas before the guy hit the road. Suspect this will be appealed, if the store has deep pockets.

[Xylochick216]

I think they can be liable in certain instances to a certain extent. If you stumble up to the bar, obviously wasted, they shouldn't serve you. If you were drinking all night and people were buying drinks for you, though, they have absolutely no way of knowing.

On a tangent, the title of this thread is irking the isht out of me.... bartenders=THEIR, not its

/grammar rant

[PM_Mama00]

Originally posted by hoosier
Some states have "Dram Shop Laws" making the bar/bartender liable if they over serve a customer. In response, the bars buy "Dram Shop Insurance" which protects them from liability. The cost of the insurance is passed along to the customers in higher drink and food prices. IL is an example of this.

We had an interesting case here in GA this fall. A 7-11 type store refused to sell booze to an obviously drunk guy. He was too drunk to even pump his own gas, so an employee pumped it. The drunk did something bad on the highway, and the store and employee lost in court for pumping gas before the guy hit the road. Suspect this will be appealed, if the store has deep pockets.

I think the 7-11 story is different than a bartender. A bartender doesn't know who is driving unless he personally sees a drunk ass getting in the driver seat of a car. From your story, it sounds like it was obvious that this drunk guy was driving and if it was and the employee knew, he should have called the cops.

[DeltAlum]

Originally posted by KSig RC
Cites, please, so we can address these beyond the generalities you're dealing in.

Sorry. Never been a law student and wouldn't know how to look them up. I'm only speaking from memory regarding Risk Management seminars and experience as a manager about company parties, etc.

Maybe someone else can help.

[honeychile]

Where's kddani when you need her?

I know that the law differs from state to state (viva la states' rights!), but here, should I have a party and someone gets drunk, and kills someone while driving drunk, it is my fault.

My problem with these laws is the same as Lindz's: what if someone goes bar hopping, and someone else goes to the bar to buy the drinks (possibly from different bartenders)? Should the bar then held responsible?

[AchtungBaby80]

I've got mixed feelings about this. You all have made some good points--how do you know if a person has been bar-hopping and this is the 19th bar they've been to that night? Or that the person buying a drink isn't buying it for their hammered friend? You don't. Now, I can understand if someone stumbles up to the bar and is obviously in bad shape that the bartender should know that that person does not need anything more to drink, and that's usually what happens at the bars I go to. A couple nights ago, for example, I went to pick my boyfriend up where he was having drinks with some friends, and one dude was so totally hammered that he could barely even stand up, much less walk straight. It was at that point that the bartender came over and said that they would need to leave, and that the bouncer would be watching to see that Mr. Intoxicated had a safe ride home. That was cool, because the guy was obviously drunk out of his mind. But then there are the people who don't look that drunk at first glance...

[honeychile]

FWIW, I understand that the laws in Europe for drunk driving are MUCH stricter than here. Do you think that, since this happened in Norway, there's a connection?

[33girl]

That would be really hard to prove at some large bars.

The place I usually go to for dancing has FOUR different rooms, and 2 bars in 2 of the rooms, plus a deck. Plus there are like 3 bartenders at each bar. How on earth could they keep track of how much people have drank? Have little walkie talkies and say "drunk girl in pink tube top moving towards deck, do not serve"?

The only type places I can see where you could legitimately prove this is teeny weeny holes in the wall, with one guy tending bar, that probably wouldn't be able to pay you off if you did sue them and win.

[AOX81]

I don't think they should be held responsible. On the other hand, if a person is that wasted why in the hell are they still serving them??

[AOPIHottie]

this is exactly why I hated being a bartender. In Texas you have to have a TABC certification to server liqour/beer, and if someone leaves your establishment and causes an accident YOU and your establishment are held resposible because of Third-party liability/Dram Shop law. You can go to jail as well as be sued and deal with a hefty fine.

I had been a bartender for years at restaurants, but after a year of working in a bar(drinks only-no food) and having to worry about the drunk people trying to leave, the cops in the parking lot, and whether I had overserved anyone, I had enough.

Originally posted by AOPIHottie
this is exactly why I hated being a bartender. In Texas you have to have a TABC certification to server liqour/beer, and if someone leaves your establishment and causes an accident YOU and your establishment are held resposible because of Third-party liability/Dram Shop law. You can go to jail as well as be sued and deal with a hefty fine.

I had been a bartender for years at restaurants, but after a year of working in a bar(drinks only-no food) and having to worry about the drunk people trying to leave, the cops in the parking lot, and whether I had overserved anyone, I had enough.

In order to get the Liquor Commission "Blue Card" that'll allow someone to bartend, one had to attend an all day class and then come back the next day and take the test.

Your reasons are the exact same reasons why I left that industry for good.

I myself am torn on the subject. While I don't really feel bartenders should be held liable, they should still exercise good judgement and be held responsible to some extent...especially if you're going to serve 19 shots of tequila in 90 minutes.

Luckily all the bartenders I know of in the industry here are reputable and fear the wrath of the Hawaii Liquor Commission to do such a thing.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by KSig RC
[B]Cites, please, so we can address these beyond the generalities you're dealing in.

Here's a 1L answer (meaning I'm quite probably wrong):

Generally speaking (and this varies from state to state), a bar patron is considered an "invitee". An invitee is someone who is upon the premises to conduct business which concerns the occupier (the bar owner/bartender). The business owes them an affirmative duty to protect them, not only against dangers of which he knows, but also against those which with reasonable care he might discover (that's a common law principle quoted directly from the Bible of Torts, Prosser & Keeton).

In the case above, we have at least the owner of the bar whose duty is to protect the invitee (patron) from dangers of which he knows (alcohol poisoning). This duty is in many cases extended by statute to the bartender, I know this for a fact in my state.

After duty, we have a breach of that duty (getting the customer dangerously intoxicated by the bartender's act of overserving), the causation in fact and proximate cause of the injury are easy to establish since death is a foreseeable consequence of having 19 shots of tequila, so in the end, you have a really good case for negligence.

-- and in many states, if there's a statute that requires bartenders to not overserve customers, there is a good case for negligence per se which imposes liability simply based on the violation of the statute.

(now, real GC lawyers, tell me how bad that answer was, I'm getting ready for my first round of exams)

[RACooper]

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Sorry. Never been a law student and wouldn't know how to look them up. I'm only speaking from memory regarding Risk Management seminars and experience as a manager about company parties, etc.

Maybe someone else can help.

Well I have never done the law thingy either... I have done the servers and managers certification course way up here - and yes the establishment can be liable.

Copy of the ministry brief given to managers/owners:
http://www.agco.on.ca/pdf/Non-Forms/3052E.pdf#search='bar%20liability%20drunk'