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...
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