Tiger Woods Being Sued for Wrongful Death of Bartender

[Patch]

These alcohol awarenes laws/training laws in Nevada were brought about by "Mothers Against Drunk Driving", or "MADD" if you will. A worthy cause my wife supports. 

Being a previous victum of a drunk driver myself, I tend to agree with these laws, and holding others liable for helping those drivers get drunk.

In my case,  the bartender was paid to help the guy get to a 1.9 blood alcohol number. Then allowed him to leave, get in a car, and drive away. Btw, that 1.9 number was taken almost an hour after the guy hit me. No telling what it was when he left the bar. 

I really don't care how the lawyers make out. They usually only win monies if they can prove negligence of an existing laws, and negligence of any kind rquires accountability. . 

[ncates00]

41 minutes ago, chspeed said:

But lack of reward caps, contingency agreements, etc.

This is overstated.  Many jurisdictions DO have caps on damages (money awards).  Here in TN for example, punitive damages are limited by statute as are noneconomic compensatory damages.  Any contractual terms and agreements are on you as the negotiating party.  It's on you (and your lawyer) to draft good documents and contracts with your clients/patients/customers to give adequate notice and terms good for both parties.  Most plaintiff's lawyers DO have contingency agreements with their clients, unless you have them on retainer or agree otherwise.  It's on you to know a little bit about contracts to be able to negotiate (just like with buying a car or haggling on eBay).  If you don't like the terms--go elsewhere in the free market.  You can always litigate on your own or get a public defender.  It's like golf clubs- you get what you pay for and no one is forcing to get Miura blades when old Wilson's might do the job.  🙂

1 hour ago, NM Golf said:

I don't blindly hate lawyers, they most certainly serve their purpose. I actually have several lawyers in the family. We just don't talk to them unless it's absolutely necessary.

And that's because the little guy doesn't make enough money, plain and simple.

Right! I can't find enough time to play golf now, let me add that to my list of worthless causes.

Dude, it ain't changing, I am not an idiot. 

A lawyer is a lawyer. 😜

🙂 

1 hour ago, boogielicious said:

We've always been litigious. Read the history of the courts in the US, UK, EU. It goes back hundreds of years, since the dawn of the judicial systems. This is nothing new. 

RIght, and that's because we want a legal forum to deal with issues as opposed to vigilante justice and Andrew Jackson duels.  Sometimes that happens any way.

1 hour ago, NM Golf said:

They do NOTHING to curb drunk driving or to promote responsible consumption of alcohol.

This is a big assumption.  One could argue it could be even worse without the laws in your jurisdiction.  

 

1 hour ago, NM Golf said:

They are there to make sure the lawyers have someone rich enough to sue.

Again, another big assumption.  As if bars are the wealthiest clients...  Most state legislatures aren't even comprised of lawyers.  They're just lay-elected representatives that are "regular lay folk" don't know how to draft statutes.  And you blame lawyers!  HA!  You can read court opinion after court opinion of judges lamenting the ambiguity and faulty drafting of local legislatures.

[Patch]

Now I am reading on espn that lawyers are claiming video evidence of the 3 hour drinking binge by the deceased has been destroyed. 

Just keeps getting worse, or better depending on which side of the fence you are on. 

It might just be me, but it seems like TW has a tough time staying away from negative events in his life. 

[ncates00]

3 minutes ago, Patch said:

Now I am reading on espn that lawyers are claiming video evidence of the 3 hour drinking binge by the deceased has been destroyed. 

Just keeps getting worse, or better depending on which side of the fence you are on. 

It might just be me, but it seems like TW has a tough time staying away from negative events in his life. 

Hopefully Tiger had nothing to do with it and his lawyer can settle it out of court quickly, so Tiger can go back to back this week.

[mcanadiens]

It's an awful thing, but I'm guessing TW isn't going to let it bother him much this weekend or going forward. 

Chances are the attorneys will settle this quickly and quietly and the story will fade away in short order.

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, Patch said:

Now I am reading on espn that lawyers are claiming video evidence of the 3 hour drinking binge by the deceased has been destroyed. 

Just keeps getting worse, or better depending on which side of the fence you are on. 

It might just be me, but it seems like TW has a tough time staying away from negative events in his life. 

Except him owning the place this might have zero to do with him.

[billchao]

It's been years since I managed a bar, but IIRC in NJ the place that served the alcohol can definitely be held liable. That's why you always had to be careful not to serve someone too much, or not to serve them if they come in visibly drunk, etc.

[David in FL]

Another example of how far we’ve come from accepting responsibility for our own actions.  It’s always someone else's fault...

Hey asshole.  You weren’t over-served.  You over-consumed!

[DeadMan]

3 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Another example of how far we’ve come from accepting responsibility for our own actions.  It’s always someone else's fault...

Hey asshole.  You weren’t over-served.  You over-consumed!

Well, that asshole is dead now, and if the allegations in the lawsuit are true, he was also likely an alcoholic. Maybe that means tempering your reaction here...

Most often, these laws are used by someone who is seriously injured by a drunk driver, not by the drunk driver.

[iacas]

I wonder, since he worked there, if he didn’t serve himself too.

[chspeed]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Except him owning the place this might have zero to do with him.

That seems the case, at least as reported by the Post (not the world's most respected rag, but not the worst).

"Goldenfarb (plaintiff lawyer) acknowledged that neither Herman nor Woods was present the day of Immesberger’s death, but he claims they are liable under state law because they own and manage the bar. He also cited a state law that holds the establishment responsible if it “knowingly serves a person habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverage.”"

 

Tiger Woods responds to drunk-driving suit amid allegations tapes were

---

Tiger Woods on Tuesday addressed the death of the employee whose Florida family is suing the PGA legend after their son was killed in a...

 

3 hours ago, Patch said:

It might just be me, but it seems like TW has a tough time staying away from negative events in his life. 

It's the price of owning businesses. If it wasn't his bar, you never would have heard about this.

Edited May 14, 2019 by chspeed

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

I wonder, since he worked there, if he didn’t serve himself too.

This. I mean, he not only worked there he was a bartender. Either way I understand the whole ‘ restaurant is responsible’ though I don’t agree with it, but the restaurant isn’t responsible for his poor choice to drive. DUI is a crime and committed by the driver who chose to drive knowingly he had consumed enough alcohol to be legally drunk at least. Just don’t see how Tiger not even being present puts him at fault.

[David in FL]

2 hours ago, DeadMan said:

Well, that asshole is dead now, and if the allegations in the lawsuit are true, he was also likely an alcoholic. Maybe that means tempering your reaction here...

Most often, these laws are used by someone who is seriously injured by a drunk driver, not by the drunk driver.

Let me rephrase.

Hey assholes.  He wasn’t over-served.  He over-consumed.

Better?  

[Slim_Pivot]

Tiger will be fine, so I’m not worried. He’s got all the money and lawyers to protect him. 

It’s just annoying for him to be dragged through the mud...again. This prob wasn’t his fault at all.

And of course they destroyed the tapes-prob that very night.

If he owns the tapes showing guilt. Should he destroy them, or give them to the police? Laughable. You hear of police departments’ tapes getting “corrupted” all the time. It’s not “team tigers” job to prove guilt, that burden falls on the prosecution.

[Hardspoon]

4 hours ago, David in FL said:

Another example of how far we’ve come from bad humans have always been at accepting responsibility for our own actions.  It’s always someone else's fault...

FTFY...because:

8 hours ago, boogielicious said:

We've always been litigious. Read the history of the courts in the US, UK, EU. It goes back hundreds of years, since the dawn of the judicial systems. This is nothing new. 

Yup.

When stories like this come out, there's always going to be a negative reaction; it just seems like someone refusing to take responsibility for their actions or looking for easy money.  In the same way, many folks have a negative reaction to cases where someone can't file a suit because of a technicality (employers forcing arbitration, for example).  But, it's never black-and-white.

It would be impossible to design a legal system that could prevent frivolous lawsuits without also preventing completely just ones.  Regardless of what you feel about this specific case, it doesn't necessarily reveal a flaw in our legal system...it just reflects a necessary, sometimes ugly compromise required to maximize just outcomes.  You can argue that the legal system errs to much to one side or the other, but it's stupid to think you could eliminate frivolous lawsuits without also denying legitimately deserving people of a recourse against injustice.

Edited May 15, 2019 by Hardspoon

[chspeed]

3 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Just don’t see how Tiger not even being present puts him at fault.

He’s not at fault in the standard English definition of fault, but in the legal definition, he is; he’s responsible. It’s not always fair, but a the choice we As a society make.

[David in FL]

24 minutes ago, chspeed said:

He’s not at fault in the standard English definition of fault, but in the legal definition, he is; he’s responsible. It’s not always fair, but a the choice we As a society make.

Not all of us.  Some of us still believe in personal responsibility.

Sadly, and to your point, we tend to be in the minority these days.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Not all of us.  Some of us still believe in personal responsibility.

Sadly, and to your point, we tend to be in the minority these days.

If he was an alcoholic then it’s not really the same as “choosing” to be responsible.