rockpile Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Lanzaro is a self admitted alcoholic... he probably had a few bottles of booze in Giants Stadium parking lot..... I can see this changing with rulings like this. Tailgating could be doomed! 210642[/snapback] That is why stadium parking lots do not open until 9am. Not that that really has any impact on this type of behavior! It just screws up having enough time to set up for a proper tailgate party. Do not hold the vendor 100% blameless, at least in violating rules for sale of beer: The NFL forbids beer sales after the third quarter; the Giants shut down beer vendors after halftime. The stadium also mandates that fans can only buy two beers at a time - a rule Lanzaro sidestepped by tipping the vendor $10, allowing him to buy six beers. I only feel sorry for the parents of that baby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The irony there is palpable. Steve blames guns for violence but not beer for drunk driving. Meanwhile, Darin remains consistant in his stance that freedom is cool and individuals who abuse it should be removed from the gene pool. 210840[/snapback] I will drink to that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Do not hold the vendor 100% blameless, at least in violating rules for sale of beer:I only feel sorry for the parents of that baby. 210844[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammered a Lot Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 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. HAMMERED, I think he was clearly OVER SIX PACKED!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 And the conversion from "citizen" to "subject" continues... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 And the conversion from "citizen" to "subject" continues... 210996[/snapback] While the brunt of the responsibility for this should be borne by the drunk, it's questionable at best that you see no responsibility borne by the vendor. This seems a bit too one sided for any arguments sake. Must be nice that the vendor has none, for their sake, at least in your eyes. Should Ford have shared any responsibility in making Pinto's that were prone to gas tank contents igniting upon a rear end collision? Should the maker's of the Dalkon (spelling?) Shield be responsible for the damage (and deaths) caused by their product? Or do we simply wish to exist in a "buyer beware" society where anything goes? I would hope not. Sorry, but product liability (manufacturer/vendor) exists for very moral, ethical and logical reasons. What simply doesn't make sense is the size of the awards. Can the little girl be replaced, clearly not. Life itself is the most valuable component of our existance, yet to make it a lottery jackpot, actually demeans life itself. I would favor reasonable limits (good God I sound like GW) on punitive damages coupled with actual damages, with fair and equitable computation of them base upon life, lost wages, etc. The problem I see with all this really is the size of the award. That, and my heart goes out to the family of the little girl who's life was tragically taken by that scumbag, who as you said, should be erased from the gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 While the brunt of the responsibility for this should be borne by the drunk, it's questionable at best that you see no responsibility borne by the vendor. This seems a bit too one sided for any arguments sake. Must be nice that the vendor has none, for their sake, at least in your eyes. Should Ford have shared any responsibility in making Pinto's that were prone to gas tank contents igniting upon a rear end collision? Should the maker's of the Dalkon (spelling?) Shield be responsible for the damage (and deaths) caused by their product? Or do we simply wish to exist in a "buyer beware" society where anything goes? I would hope not. 211151[/snapback] Product liability? Was the beer somehow defective? Nice "comparing apples to cinder blocks" argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 And the conversion from "citizen" to "subject" continues... 210996[/snapback] ...and "victim," and "consumer," and finally, "household unit." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 While the brunt of the responsibility for this should be borne by the drunk, it's questionable at best that you see no responsibility borne by the vendor. This seems a bit too one sided for any arguments sake. Must be nice that the vendor has none, for their sake, at least in your eyes. Should Ford have shared any responsibility in making Pinto's that were prone to gas tank contents igniting upon a rear end collision? Should the maker's of the Dalkon (spelling?) Shield be responsible for the damage (and deaths) caused by their product? Or do we simply wish to exist in a "buyer beware" society where anything goes? I would hope not. Sorry, but product liability (manufacturer/vendor) exists for very moral, ethical and logical reasons. What simply doesn't make sense is the size of the awards. Can the little girl be replaced, clearly not. Life itself is the most valuable component of our existance, yet to make it a lottery jackpot, actually demeans life itself. I would favor reasonable limits (good God I sound like GW) on punitive damages coupled with actual damages, with fair and equitable computation of them base upon life, lost wages, etc. The problem I see with all this really is the size of the award. That, and my heart goes out to the family of the little girl who's life was tragically taken by that scumbag, who as you said, should be erased from the gene pool. 211151[/snapback] This is not an issue of product liability in my eyes. It was not like the buyer was unaware that alcohol has the potential to make him drunk. Whatever the law says, all of the consequences were his fault alone morally when he began to drink that first drink. Also, last time I checked, beer producers or vendors never tried to claim that they their products don't get people drunk. Companies aren't or at least shouldn't be liable when the risks of a product are known ahead of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 My solution would be to only serve dark beer (mmmm) like Guinness at the games. Any idiot who pounds those wouldn't be able to make it to his car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 ...and "victim," and "consumer," and finally, "household unit." 211156[/snapback] Where are the stakeholders? I need to discuss this with the stakeholders! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMadCap Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 If the Aramark employee BROKE the rules by selling the guy more beer than he was supposed to get, on the sly no less, then Aramark is in some measure responsible. Had that little factoid not been divulged, then the drunk guy would be 100% at fault... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 Product liability? Was the beer somehow defective? Nice "comparing apples to cinder blocks" argument. 211153[/snapback] The mitigating factor in this clearly is (if true) that the vendor's employee did accept the $10.00 tip/bribe to sell more than the established limit. That action, in and of itself, does place considerable responsibility with the employee and the vendor, and rightfully so. That act alone makes this similar to turning one's back to known defects. Be honest, why was a limit established to begin with? Might it have something to do with known problems caused by the over consumption of the product they sell? Had it not be broken, then I could argue that the vendor did not fail in acting with due diligence but alas, that apparently wasn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 This is not an issue of product liability in my eyes. It was not like the buyer was unaware that alcohol has the potential to make him drunk. Whatever the law says, all of the consequences were his fault alone morally when he began to drink that first drink. Also, last time I checked, beer producers or vendors never tried to claim that they their products don't get people drunk. Companies aren't or at least shouldn't be liable when the risks of a product are known ahead of time. 211161[/snapback] As I just replied to AD, if their employee broke the "Limit" rules, then it does become their shared responsibility, directly relating to their product and the reasons for an imposed limit thereof. Surely, I do feel the brunt should be borne by the drunken scumbag, but it's quite evident that if the "limit" (to their product) was broken, then they become a part of the shared responsibility with the tragic events that their "product" contributed towards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The mitigating factor in this clearly is (if true) that the vendor's employee did accept the $10.00 tip/bribe to sell more than the established limit. That action, in and of itself, does place considerable responsibility with the employee and the vendor, and rightfully so. That act alone makes this similar to turning one's back to known defects. Be honest, why was a limit established to begin with? Might it have something to do with known problems caused by the over consumption of the product they sell? Had it not be broken, then I could argue that the vendor did not fail in acting with due diligence but alas, that apparently wasn't the case. 211186[/snapback] While I agree with most of your statements, I cannot agree with: That act alone makes this similar to turning one's back to known defects. I do not see this as similar. If the vendor knew that the employee was breaking the rules and still overlooked them, then you would have a case. As far as I know, the vendor did not specifically know that this happened. The vendor is still responsible for their employees but this case is not similar, as you have suggested, to willful negligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The mitigating factor in this clearly is (if true) that the vendor's employee did accept the $10.00 tip/bribe to sell more than the established limit. 211186[/snapback] I did this the last time I was at the Ralph. My friend and I both wanted 4 beers (for the sole reason of not having to get up during play). We were both told no. We each offered $10 each, and walked away with 4 beers each. The trick was carrying 4 of those beers at once - you can't be against dipping you fingers into your own beer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 The mitigating factor in this clearly is (if true) that the vendor's employee did accept the $10.00 tip/bribe to sell more than the established limit. That action, in and of itself, does place considerable responsibility with the employee and the vendor, and rightfully so. That act alone makes this similar to turning one's back to known defects. Be honest, why was a limit established to begin with? Might it have something to do with known problems caused by the over consumption of the product they sell? Had it not be broken, then I could argue that the vendor did not fail in acting with due diligence but alas, that apparently wasn't the case. 211186[/snapback] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavin in Va Beach Posted January 19, 2005 Share Posted January 19, 2005 And yes, Aramark was responsible for selling the azzhat beer. 210829[/snapback] Whatever dude. Like paying $8 bucks a beer? After this they'll probably have to charge $10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall 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] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb 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] 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts