Gavin in Va Beach Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 You think beers are that expensive because of lawsuits and not because they have exclusive license to sell them for whatever they like? I suppose someone choked on a hotdog once and jacked them up to $5.50 too. The driver is responsible here, but let's get this straight. This lawsuit isn't exactly hurting Mom and Pop, here. It's hurting a ruthless company that is going to do exactly as you say and pass the cost on to the consumer. 211216[/snapback] Whatever you say slappy. If this lawsuit WAS hurting Mom and Pop, would that somehow make it different? Oh I forgot, Big Corporation = Bad. Big Government = Good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Whatever you say slappy. If this lawsuit WAS hurting Mom and Pop, would that somehow make it different? Oh I forgot, Big Corporation = Bad. Big Government = Good. 211225[/snapback] Nope, both suck hard. Your problem is that you think they have grounds to charge that much for a beverage and cup that probably costs them pennies to produce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Once again, an INDIVIDUAL broke a corporate policy that only exists because other INDIVIDUALS can't control themselves when they are in public. Down the road we're going to see vendors carrying breathalyzers and you'll have to be below the legal limit before you can purchase. The industry is going to adapt to our individual lack of discretion. It always does. The limit was established in the first place because of court cases just like this one where emotion overcomes reason and big picture rationale is lost to hot pockets mentality. Ask yourself why a beer that used to cost $.75 now costs $8? At least a percentage of that cost is to cover the litigation because our society is now beholden to excuses instead of responsibility. Beer is an inanimate object and the decision to consume 14 and then see how well you drive later ain't the fault of the maker, distributor, or seller. Those who would choose security over freedom deserve neither. 211198[/snapback] Catchy phrase (your close), but the if that employee did violate the "limit" ploicy then shared responsibility does fall back on the vendor as well. That is what place's the company in harm's way. It cannot be exonerated for the actions of any employee, from the CEO to the counter guy selling the beer. Sorry, but this is both reasonable and logical. In fact, had there not been a limit policy, again we could argue against placing the vendor/company at risk in this action, but that wasn't the case. The "limit" policy clearly shows an understanding of what their product can contribute to. Can't pick and chose bits and pieces. You have to look at the whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Never mind the loss of life this contibuted to. Who cares anyway...... Hope that something like this never happens to anyone here, but if it did, I'll bet the tune would change quickly. 211219[/snapback] Emotion rules the day again. This outcome of this suit will have NO EFFECT on those who wish to get drunk and drive at sporting events. They can't get it from a vendor then they'll find another way. Schit happens. It sucks. I have a soon to be 6-month old son and if this happened to me then in my pain perhaps I would listen to a shyster lawyer who is advising me to sue everyone, misery loves company after all (and a buttload of cash doesn't hurt either). Still wouldn't make it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Emotion rules the day again. This outcome of this suit will have NO EFFECT on those who wish to get drunk and drive at sporting events. They can't get it from a vendor then they'll find another way. Schit happens. It sucks. I have a soon to be 6-month old son and if this happened to me then in my pain perhaps I would listen to a shyster lawyer who is advising me to sue everyone, misery loves company after all (and a buttload of cash doesn't hurt either). Still wouldn't make it right. 211240[/snapback] The "argument" revolves around the purported violation of the "limit" policy which clearly implies an understanding of what the product may contribute to. Surely, the scumbag is the front runner, but from a legal and ethical perspective, the vendor does share responsibility. What is wrong with this case is the size of the award, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Catchy phrase (your close), but the if that employee did violate the "limit" ploicy then shared responsibility does fall back on the vendor as well. That is what place's the company in harm's way. It cannot be exonerated for the actions of any employee, from the CEO to the counter guy selling the beer. Sorry, but this is both reasonable and logical. In fact, had there not been a limit policy, again we could argue against placing the vendor/company at risk in this action, but that wasn't the case. The "limit" policy clearly shows an understanding of what their product can contribute to. Can't pick and chose bits and pieces. You have to look at the whole. 211238[/snapback] Nothing more than the same bunch of nonsense which has contributed to the downfall of public decorum and the loss of individual freedom in our society. Soldier on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The "argument" revolves around the purported violation of the "limit" policy which clearly implies an understanding of what the product may contribute to. Surely, the scumbag is the front runner, but from a legal and ethical perspective, the vendor does share responsibility. What is wrong with this case is the size of the award, nothing more. 211251[/snapback] bull sh--. If this guy had brewed his own hootch at his house, your argument would be carried over to the manufacturer of the container he carried it in, or the distributor of the ingredients he used to make them. Evil corporations giving people what they want. Evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 bull sh--. If this guy had brewed his own hootch at his house, your argument would be carried over to the manufacturer of the container he carried it in, or the distributor of the ingredients he used to make them. Evil corporations giving people what they want. Evil. 211259[/snapback] Nope, then the liability would be all his. Can't continue to deny that the "limit" itself expressed an understanding of their product and that they, through the actions of their employee, violated that accepted understanding. That's what is the essence of responsibility anyway. This is not an evil company issue. Now who's comparing apples to donuts? Have a great day... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Nope, then the liability would be all his. Can't continue to deny that the "limit" itself expressed an understanding of their product and that they, through the actions of their employee, violated that accepted understanding. That's what is the essence of responsibility anyway. This is not an evil company issue. Now who's comparing apples to donuts? Have a great day... 211279[/snapback] The liability should be all his anyway. Does this guy own a house? A car? Any other assets? They should be 100% liquidated and all funds given to the family. When he gets out of jail, 50% of his post-tax income goes to the little girl for as long as she is cripple (sounds like life). All of this should happen before anyone starts looking to sue any secondary parties. Going after the deep pockets is bullstevestojan. And the same thing should happen to white collar criminals btw. Having a guy pay a $5MM fine and a year in jail after he stole $50MM isn't going to help. Take every friggin penny and let them sleep in the streets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sweet baboo Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Whatever dude. Like paying $8 bucks a beer? After this they'll probably have to charge $10. 211210[/snapback] man, i've never bought beer at the stadium because of those prices...i can get a sixpack of decent stuff outside Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Nope, then the liability would be all his. Can't continue to deny that the "limit" itself expressed an understanding of their product and that they, through the actions of their employee, violated that accepted understanding. That's what is the essence of responsibility anyway. 211279[/snapback] That's amazing "lahjik." And we wonder why there are more lawyers in law school today than are actually practicing. Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Nope, then the liability would be all his. Can't continue to deny that the "limit" itself expressed an understanding of their product and that they, through the actions of their employee, violated that accepted understanding. That's what is the essence of responsibility anyway. This is not an evil company issue. Now who's comparing apples to donuts? Have a great day... 211279[/snapback] The law in New Jersey is quite clear, you can be responsible in tort for serving someone who is "visibly intoxicated." If, as a matter of fact, an Aramark employee served this guy while he was visibly drunk, then they are liable, as a corporation can only act through it's representives. If you think it's a bad law, change it. If you think a corporation should not be responsible for it's employees conduct if it violates some internal rule, that would be fine too. But, if it is true, as alleged, that Aramark was happy to serve drunk people, that it winked when it's employees served visibly intoxicated people, then it bears responsibility. This is not purely passive conduct on the part of the company, as is often the case with a gun manufacturer(here, to me, the beer company would be analogous to the gun manufacturer). Now there is no basis to hold the NFL or the Giants responsible under the law of New Jersey, that is why the case was dismissed as to them. But this is not a situation where the court made up some new standard, it simply followed the statute that duly elected officials in New Jersey passed as law. And it hardly seems unreasonable to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The law in New Jersey is quite clear, you can be responsible in tort for serving someone who is "visibly intoxicated." If, as a matter of fact, an Aramark employee served this guy while he was visibly drunk, then they are liable, as a corporation can only act through it's representives. If you think it's a bad law, change it. If you think a corporation should not be responsible for it's employees conduct if it violates some internal rule, that would be fine too. But, if it is true, as alleged, that Aramark was happy to serve drunk people, that it winked when it's employees served visibly intoxicated people, then it bears responsibility. This is not purely passive conduct on the part of the company, as is often the case with a gun manufacturer(here, to me, the beer company would be analogous to the gun manufacturer). Now there is no basis to hold the NFL or the Giants responsible under the law of New Jersey, that is why the case was dismissed as to them. But this is not a situation where the court made up some new standard, it simply followed the statute that duly elected officials in New Jersey passed as law. And it hardly seems unreasonable to me. 211355[/snapback] Well said. Now you better duck.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevbeau Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The law in New Jersey is quite clear, you can be responsible in tort for serving someone who is "visibly intoxicated." If, as a matter of fact, an Aramark employee served this guy while he was visibly drunk, then they are liable, as a corporation can only act through it's representives. If you think it's a bad law, change it. If you think a corporation should not be responsible for it's employees conduct if it violates some internal rule, that would be fine too. But, if it is true, as alleged, that Aramark was happy to serve drunk people, that it winked when it's employees served visibly intoxicated people, then it bears responsibility. This is not purely passive conduct on the part of the company, as is often the case with a gun manufacturer(here, to me, the beer company would be analogous to the gun manufacturer). Now there is no basis to hold the NFL or the Giants responsible under the law of New Jersey, that is why the case was dismissed as to them. But this is not a situation where the court made up some new standard, it simply followed the statute that duly elected officials in New Jersey passed as law. And it hardly seems unreasonable to me. 211355[/snapback] There's lot of grey area to "visibly intoxicated." It sounds like in this case, the guy clearly was, but we all know people who hold their liquor extremely well...but that doesn't make them any less intoxicated legally. As for built in litigation costs, they're in every product you buy. Unofficially every can of Coke you buy has about 3 cents tacked on to cover lawsuits (most frivilous). I would imagine Pepsi is about the same, and Beer to be quite higher. Also as it makes it way through a distributor and eventually a vendor/bar, they will add their own estimates to cover their assumed legal/insurance obligations. Dangerous items like blow dryers and cordless screwdrivers probably double their costs to cover legal expenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey D Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 There's lot of grey area to "visibly intoxicated." It sounds like in this case, the guy clearly was, but we all know people who hold their liquor extremely well...but that doesn't make them any less intoxicated legally. As for built in litigation costs, they're in every product you buy. Unofficially every can of Coke you buy has about 3 cents tacked on to cover lawsuits (most frivilous). I would imagine Pepsi is about the same, and Beer to be quite higher. Also as it makes it way through a distributor and eventually a vendor/bar, they will add their own estimates to cover their assumed legal/insurance obligations. Dangerous items like blow dryers and cordless screwdrivers probably double their costs to cover legal expenses. 211409[/snapback] I agree, it is up to the factfinder, i.e, the jury, to determine if the guy appeared visibly intoxicated. The issue is not whether he was intoxicated--this is not strict liability--it is whether he "appeared" intoxicated. If someone holds his liquor well and shows no sign of intoxication, then the vendor would not be responsilbe even if the guy had a .2 blood level. I have not heard the evidence, so I am not in a position to judge. But juries are just people finding facts--it they got it really wrong, the decision can be reversed. I cannot assume that the jury was wrong to say the guy looked intoxicated, when he had a .26 blood alcohol level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 I bartended for years and when things were busy it was very hard to tell if someone was intoxicated. Unless they're completely slurring their words or cannot stand up you usually couldn't tell. Everyone knows how busy those vendors are durring games and short of giving everyone a breathalizer you could never stop someone from drinking too much. The other thing to consider is that he wasn't even the one who purchased the drinks, it could have been a buddy doing the buying. 210643[/snapback] That is not a bad idea. Have a one beer limit. You have to buy your own beer and have a portable breathalyzer (sp?) that everyone has to pass before selling them the beer. A disposable mouth piece should be sanitary enough. That would go along way towards limiting drunken fans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 That is not a bad idea. Have a one beer limit. You have to buy your own beer and have a portable breathalyzer (sp?) that everyone has to pass before selling them the beer. A disposable mouth piece should be sanitary enough. That would go along way towards limiting drunken fans. 211467[/snapback] And, since it will take about 3 hours to get a beer with that system, no one will be able to get drunk at the games! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taterhill Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 That is not a bad idea. Have a one beer limit. You have to buy your own beer and have a portable breathalyzer (sp?) that everyone has to pass before selling them the beer. A disposable mouth piece should be sanitary enough. That would go along way towards limiting drunken fans. 211467[/snapback] so punish the responsible people b/c of the acts of a few morons???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 And, since it will take about 3 hours to get a beer with that system, no one will be able to get drunk at the games! 211496[/snapback] Go Freedom! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Whatever dude. Like paying $8 bucks a beer? After this they'll probably have to charge $10. 211210[/snapback] I never buy beer at a football game. Well, almost never. Far more economical to sneak in a flask and buy sodas. But usually, I just drink my fill before the games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts