Tiger Woods Being Sued for Wrongful Death of Bartender

[Hardspoon]

28 minutes ago, David in FL said:

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

I think that business owners (like me) are sometimes liable for the ramifications of their big-picture decisions, and the corporate culture they create and encourage, or the decisions of their employees.

Does that mean I don’t believe in personal responsibility? 

 

[David in FL]

33 minutes ago, iacas said:

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

When I say personal responsibility, I mean accepting the consequences for one’s actions.  Not looking to assign responsibility to someone else.

And yes, I believe that even an alcoholic should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.  Certainly we shouldn’t be looking to assign that accountability to someone else.  Be that a bartender who served them, or the restaurant owner in whose establishment they chose to over-imbibe.

 

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, David in FL said:

When I say personal responsibility, I mean accepting the consequences for one’s actions.  Not looking to assign responsibility to someone else.

And yes, I believe that even an alcoholic should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions.  Certainly we shouldn’t be looking to assign that accountability to someone else.  Be that a bartender who served them, or the restaurant owner in whose establishment they chose to over-imbibe.

You and @pganapathy would get along well.

[Hardspoon]

9 minutes ago, David in FL said:

When I say personal responsibility, I mean accepting the consequences for one’s actions.  Not looking to assign responsibility to someone else.

Nobody is arguing with that. 

You probably have a very narrow view of personal responsibility.

If a restaurant owner creates and encourages an environment where anyone is served any amount of alcohol without concern or regard for the potential dangers of that policy, and they feel like they have no liability for what happens, they are not accepting the consequences for their actions. They’ve neglected their personal responsibility.

[DeadMan]

For what it's worth, this is really a non-story. Tiger is only potentially liable vicariously as the owner of the restaurant. As far as I can tell, he wasn't personally involved in serving this guy. This is 100% ordinary. 

And as much as I enjoy @David in FL going all Abe SImpson on us, these types of lawsuits are usually insurance companies fighting over who is paying for injuries. A guy hit by a drunk driver and seriously injured could have millions of dollars in medical bills. His health insurance company is going to seek compensation for that. They will go after the driver's auto insurance, which won't come close to covering that. Then, the next place is the business insurance of the bar that served the drunk driver. 

This lawsuit doesn't appear to be that, but generally these lawsuits are insurance companies fighting. It's about risk allocation more than it is with personal responsibility. 

[David in FL]

8 minutes ago, DeadMan said:

This lawsuit doesn't appear to be that, but generally these lawsuits are insurance companies fighting. It's about risk allocation more than it is with personal responsibility. 

The insurance companies wouldn’t be able to “allocate” that risk, if there weren’t people willing to blame a bartender and/or the business for which he works, for the actions of a patron.  A patron who is the only one who made the decision to drink, and subsequently drive.

Therein lies the unwillingness to assign the accountability where it actually belongs.  Sadly, juries tend to want to find some way to compensate the poor victim, and since the dead drunk who actually caused the tragedy has no money, they’ll look elsewhere.  Whether it’s right, or not.

 

 

 

 

[Vinsk]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

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

Erik that may be true regarding the drinking. But it doesn’t excuse his ‘choosing’ to drive. That’s where he’s every bit liable for responsibility as the next person. No?

[David in FL]

49 minutes ago, iacas said:

You and @pganapathy would get along well.

In this case, yep!

[DeadMan]

7 minutes ago, David in FL said:

The insurance companies wouldn’t be able to “allocate” that risk, if there weren’t people willing to blame a bartender and/or the business for which he works, for the actions of a patron.  A patron who is the only one who made the decision to drink, and subsequently drive.

Therein lies the unwillingness to assign the accountability where it actually belongs.  Sadly, juries tend to want to find some way to compensate the poor victim, and since the dead drunk who actually caused the tragedy has no money, they’ll look elsewhere.  Whether it’s right, or not.

 

 

 

 

There’s a reason vicarious liability has been a doctrine since the beginnings of tort law. As a society, we have decided it’s better to compensate innocent victims than to let them fend for themselves after an accident they were not at fault for. 

More concretely, your line of thinking would leave victims of drunk drivers with shattered lives and no compensation. They would only be able to recover from the drunk driver’s auto insurance, and all of that would be used to cover medical costs. The victim wouldn’t see a cent. 

All of this talk about “personal responsibility” leads to that. It’s heartless and incredibly myopic. And horribly ignorant about the justifications for tort law and why it’s important to society.

[NationwideTourCrimsonTide]

12 hours ago, ncates00 said:

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.

All laws passed by State Legislatures were drafted by or with assistance from attorneys. The Legislators themselves may not be attorneys, but to have the language codified into statute, it’s 100% a legal document written or overseen and then potentially amended by a lawyer. Just because a judge may consider a new law passed by a legislature to be overly ambiguous does not mean it wasn’t written by a lawyer.

5 hours ago, Hardspoon said:

FTFY...because:

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.

Exactly. Well said!

[David L Yskes]

while i am not a big fan of TW, even i am like Da Fuq?????    his name is only in the news because he is the owner of the restaurant....  it wasn't like he was feeding him the drinks endlessly....  

 

Now this goes back many years, and i tried to find the name of the bar, but there was a bar / club in Grand Haven Michigan, that back in the 90s had a incident like this happen...    and even back then i remember going WTF??????       So to get into the bar you had to be 21 or over... well this kid who was NOT 21, i believe he was still a teen, probably 18/19, was BFF's with the front door guy, and well, the front door guy, let his buddy into the club....    Well the underaged kid, got himself drunk as hell and on his way home crashed his vehicle and died...    And the parent's decided to sue the club....    And I remember thinking WTF?????   you are blaming the club for serving your kid, when your kid is at fault.... and if his "friend" would not of let him into the club, he would not of been there drinking...       

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Vinsk said:

Erik that may be true regarding the drinking. But it doesn’t excuse his ‘choosing’ to drive. That’s where he’s every bit liable for responsibility as the next person. No?

Once you’re impaired, you’re impaired.

7 hours ago, DeadMan said:

More concretely, your line of thinking would leave victims of drunk drivers with shattered lives and no compensation. They would only be able to recover from the drunk driver’s auto insurance, and all of that would be used to cover medical costs. The victim wouldn’t see a cent. 

All of this talk about “personal responsibility” leads to that. It’s heartless and incredibly myopic. And horribly ignorant about the justifications for tort law and why it’s important to society.

Oh stop with the logic. Much better to have the thinking logic of a five year old, with no nuance, understanding of a larger picture, or anything else besides “man drinks blame him only.”

A frat when I was in college nearby was sued and lost for serving alcohol to underage kids. That’s a simple one - yes the kids shouldn’t have consumed, but the frat also broke the law.

The laws here place some responsibility not to over-serve, not to serve alcoholics, not to do other things.

(One of the kids at the frat party nearly drowned and missed several weeks of school.)

[David in FL]

15 minutes ago, iacas said:

Once you’re impaired, you’re impaired.

 

Great, now being impaired absolves responsibility.  

 

Tell me how a $15/hr bartender is supposed to know that the person he’s serving is a functional, though inebriated alcoholic.

Sorry, but some of these laws are ridiculous.  Not checking the ID of an underage drinker, certainly, but the next step here is blaming the car salesman who sold the drunk an automobile.  

And yep, sometimes bad things happen and we don’t get rich because of it.  

Never mind, as I said, I understand I’m in the minority here.  Sadly so.

Edited May 15, 2019 by David in FL

[saevel25]

I am going to switch my opinion on this. After thinking about it, I can see how a business owner could be liable in this case.

7 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Tell me how a $15/hr bartender is supposed to know that the person he’s serving is a functional, though inebriated alcoholic.

If the bartender has only been working for 6 months, I give you that. If you are talking about a seasoned bartender (who could still be making $15/hour), they probably know easily. I wouldn't presume low income wage is the same with lack of knowledge of ones field. In Ohio, the minimum wage for anyone who makes tips is substantially lower than standard minimum wage. Yet, I wouldn't presume to have an authoritative opinion on being a server or bartender.

8 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Sorry, but some of these laws are ridiculous.  Not checking the ID of an underage drinker, certainly, but the next step here is blaming the car salesman who sold the drunk an automobile.

That analogy doesn't work here. The car salesman wasn't enabling the person to be inebriated.

---

Here is the quick fix for Tiger. Require the bartenders to take some sort of training program and have a zero policy on allowing people to get trashed. I think this would protect Tiger from any liability then.

[David in FL]

7 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That analogy doesn't work here. The car salesman wasn't enabling the person to be inebriated.

---

 

He enabled the person to drive.  More so than the bartender.

By the way, there’s no law against either...nor should there be.

 

10 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

 

---

Here is the quick fix for Tiger. Require the bartenders to take some sort of training program and have a zero policy on allowing people to get trashed. I think this would protect Tiger from any liability then.

So, a bar that fires it’s bartenders if a patron gets drunk?  

 

[Bucki1968]

I don't think it's possible for a bartender to know how drunk a customer is. I know from personal experience that you can sit at a bar and function normally and be pretty buzzed. Obviously if the signs are there (having trouble walking, slurring speech, etc.) it's much easier to cut someone off and send them home. And to know a customer is an alcoholic? I guess they should carry around a card or wear a chain or something? This entire debate has gone on for years and will be going on for many years to come. Maybe a breathalyzer before you leave a bar/restaurant? 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, David in FL said:

Great, now being impaired absolves responsibility.  

That's not what I said.

45 minutes ago, David in FL said:

By the way, there’s no law against either...nor should there be.

There is, actually, for bartenders.

You're missing out on the fact that "responsibility" is not 100% assignable to one person, @David in FL. Others were culpable, and like @DeadMan has pointed out repeatedly, as a lawyer, tort law has existed and exists for very good reasons.

[saevel25]

41 minutes ago, David in FL said:

He enabled the person to drive.  More so than the bartender. 

No he didn't.

Just because he bought a car doesn't mean he will drive it. What if he bought a car for his daughter?

He sat down at a bar to drink. The bartenders kept giving him drinks well past the point of were he should have functioning reasoning working properly.  The bartenders then continued to take advantage of this state by giving him more alcohol. Most good bartenders know when to cut off a patron. I've seen it happen. A college kid walked came into this bar I go to already smashed. The bar would not serve him.

48 minutes ago, David in FL said:

So, a bar that fires it’s bartenders if a patron gets drunk?  

What hurts the bar more. Firing a bartender who lets a person get wasted behind comprehension or getting sued and having to close business? If a bar cared about their patrons they would do everything in their power to keep that person at the bar, give them water or food, and let them become less drunk.