rockpile Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The vendor had rules in place which their employee broke. There's not much anyone can do when an individual decides to break the law. Again, this clown choose to pour 6 beers down his throat and then see how well he could drive a car (this says nothing of how many he'd already had). Death by bunga bunga. 210850[/snapback] Do not worry, I KNOW the vendor did not make this piece of sh-- drink too much or drive drunk. Just pointed out there was a window for non-compliance that lawyers will always exploit. The only regret I have is he hit a family with his car not a concrete wall. If there was a "just" God...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Gotta love activist judges and MADD. I'm sure they'll find a way to pass more BS laws, and drop the BAC down another .01%. Just to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of one jackass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Gotta love activist judges and MADD. I'm sure they'll find a way to pass more BS laws, and drop the BAC down another .01%. Just to punish law abiding citizens for the actions of one jackass. 211719[/snapback] This falls under the "watch out what you wish for, you just might get it" thing they taught us as kids. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Do not worry, I KNOW the vendor did not make this piece of sh-- drink too much or drive drunk. Just pointed out there was a window for non-compliance that lawyers will always exploit. The only regret I have is he hit a family with his car not a concrete wall. If there was a "just" God...... 211717[/snapback] I wasn't worried at all. Personally I wish dude had made himself into a grease stain - but knowing our society his family probably would have sued and won $60,000,000 from the vending company because their douche bag kid didn't know enough not to drink 14 beers and then get behind the wheel of his car. Loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Let's just replace the beer vendors with bong shops and bud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeInRoch Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 It is horrible that the law in New Jersey allowed this lawsuit. The attitude that anyone except an individual can be responsible for the actions of that individual is assinine. And just because you have voluntarily put yourself in a position to make bad decisions does not mean that anyone else is obligated to make a better decision for you. It's the great American way: A tragedy happened! Let's sue the guy with the biggest pockets! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 It is horrible that the law in New Jersey allowed this lawsuit. The attitude that anyone except an individual can be responsible for the actions of that individual is assinine. And just because you have voluntarily put yourself in a position to make bad decisions does not mean that anyone else is obligated to make a better decision for you. It's the great American way: A tragedy happened! Let's sue the guy with the biggest pockets! 211754[/snapback] I don't understand why some of you are so opposed to the idea of cutting someone off. It's not an exact science, but it is a means of potentially preventing the sale of alcohol to someone who is already clearly impaired. Yeah, sometimes it's hard to tell. But sometimes it's not. And I think it's a very reasonable measure to expect bartenders or beer vendors to cut someone off. In fact, it's common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeInRoch Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I don't understand why some of you are so opposed to the idea of cutting someone off. It's not an exact science, but it is a means of potentially preventing the sale of alcohol to someone who is already clearly impaired. Yeah, sometimes it's hard to tell. But sometimes it's not. And I think it's a very reasonable measure to expect bartenders or beer vendors to cut someone off. In fact, it's common sense. 211758[/snapback] I am opposed to a vendor having a *legal* obligation to cut someone off, and being legally responsible for their actions if they do not. Purhaps that person has a ride home? In which case why should they not have the right to drink as much as they please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I am opposed to a vendor having a *legal* obligation to cut someone off, and being legally responible for their actions if they do not. Purhaps that person has a ride home? In which case why should they not have the right to drink as much as they please? 211765[/snapback] Hmmm......Okay, well I agree that having a legal obligation to discern who is and is not intoxicated can be problematic. But depending on how the law reads (and for the record, I don't know how it reads in NJ) I don't see why it being a legal obligation would complicate things if what you are legally obligated to do is cut off those who are clearly exhibiting beahvior consistent with intoxication. The times when I've been pretty hammered, all I've really exhibited was verbal diarrhea. I don't think that with someone like me it would be an "obvious" case. But if the standard they are held to is someone who is CLEARLY intoxicated, I agree with it being enforced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeInRoch Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Hmmm......Okay, well I agree that having a legal obligation to discern who is and is not intoxicated can be problematic. But depending on how the law reads (and for the record, I don't know how it reads in NJ) I don't see why it being a legal obligation would complicate things if what you are legally obligated to do is cut off those who are clearly exhibiting beahvior consistent with intoxication. The times when I've been pretty hammered, all I've really exhibited was verbal diarrhea. I don't think that with someone like me it would be an "obvious" case. But if the standard they are held to is someone who is CLEARLY intoxicated, I agree with it being enforced. 211775[/snapback] I'm not arguing about what the law actually says - I'm arguing about what the law *should* be. The law should not obligate someone to take over responsibility for another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajzepp Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I'm not arguing about what the law actually says - I'm arguing about what the law *should* be. The law should not obligate someone to take over responsibility for another. 211786[/snapback] I agree with that in principle......I guess I just feel in this instance the responsibility is a shared one. It's unequally shared, but being that we're talking about someone in public who poses a potential danger - and may not realize it - I don't think it's unreasonable for the vendor to have vigilance required of him or her to some degree. Innocent people dying because of drunk drivers is a obviously a huge problem, and I think this is a pretty reasonable step to take in order to make a small dent in the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 Actually I don't have a problem with this. Clearly, when someone is intoxicated they don't have control of their situation. This guy wasn't just drunk, he was HAMMERED, and Aramark had a big part in that. 210806[/snapback] The family deserves to be be compensated, but at what cost to millions of sports fans? A simialar thing happened to a local church festival we have here. They used to serve beer and it was a really big event for the community. After one of these, a guy driving home FROM A BAR hit a pedestrian who was walking on the shoulder of the road. Lawsuit ensued, Festival obviously wasn't liable but was named in lawsuit because he had been there. From then on the festival ceased serving beer and the majority of adult males stopped coming to the festival or spending money. Beyond the lost profits, the festival could not afford higher quality entertainment. It's a non-event now and the lost revenue contributed greatly to the closing of the catholic school. I can tell you wthout doubt, if alcohol were banned at Bills tailgates, there would be no more Buffalo Bills. I don't know what the answer is here, but I know that making Aramark cough up $60M is not it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
millbank Posted January 20, 2005 Author Share Posted January 20, 2005 Just in jury has award a additional $75 million in Punitive Damages makes the total $135 million , $60 million in compensatory damages , $75 Million in punitive for the total $135. "We're ecstatic," said David Mazie, the Vernis' attorney. "I think it sends an appropriate message, and hopefully this will make a difference at arenas across the country." A lawyer for Aramark did not immediately return a message from The Associated Press on Wednesday. But Brian Harris suggested during the trial that the vendors were not irresponsible when they sold Lanzaro beer because he is an admitted alcoholic and either did not show signs of intoxication or was able to fool the servers. $135 million drunk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted January 20, 2005 Share Posted January 20, 2005 I don't understand why some of you are so opposed to the idea of cutting someone off. It's not an exact science, but it is a means of potentially preventing the sale of alcohol to someone who is already clearly impaired. Yeah, sometimes it's hard to tell. But sometimes it's not. And I think it's a very reasonable measure to expect bartenders or beer vendors to cut someone off. In fact, it's common sense. 211758[/snapback] I would not want to be the beer vendor at a football game, telling a drunk he had enough to drink, "run along now". Not unless they provided me with armed guards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts