Tiger Woods Being Sued for Wrongful Death of Bartender

[Lihu]

Tiger Woods faces wrongful death lawsuit brought by parents of restaurant employee

---

Tiger Woods and the GM of his Jupiter, Florida, restaurant face a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of a bartender who died in a car crash.

Quote

Immesberger had a history of alcohol abuse, and the lawsuit alleges “Tiger knew, or reasonably should have known, that Immesberger was habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages, and/or was a habitual drunkard.”

While the lawsuit alleges, "Tiger is individually liable in this action because he individually participated in the serving of alcohol," that doesn’t mean Woods served — or was even at The Woods — that day. Woods, under state alcohol laws, potentially could be held liable as an owner of the establishment even if he wasn’t physically at the venue if a foreseeable risk of injury or death occurs due to over-serving.

Wow...I mean, wtf?

Edited May 14, 2019 by Lihu

[SloopDanB]

Somebody lookin' for a money-grab, plain and simple. A known alcoholic working as a Bartender?!? I hope this case gets dropped on day 1. 

[saevel25]

7 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Woods, under state alcohol laws, potentially could be held liable as an owner of the establishment even if he wasn’t physically at the venue if a foreseeable risk of injury or death occurs due to over-serving.

I find this logic to be BS.

[NM Golf]

This is typical of our nation today. Obviously it is a shame that that kid wrapped his car around a tree and ended up dead, BUT, that's his own fault. Our society never seems to want to place blame where it's due. Tiger and his girl didn't force feed him alcohol, and I guarantee there was an Uber driver on duty somewhere in the vicinity that could have gotten him home safely. All the poor decisions made that night were made by him.

I've gotten drunker than fifteen sorority girls more times than I care to count. AND each time I found a safe way home. Even that inebriated I knew better than to go get into a car and drive off. Hell, back in the day I used to keep a pillow and blanket in the back of my car in case I tied one on I could sleep it off in the back seat. Hmm now come to think of it I may have had a problem. 😬

[ncates00]

I would need to see more facts, but I don't see Tiger being liable for wrongful death.  Maybe negligent hiring.  Owners/managers can be held vicariously liable for the acts of their employees.  The buck stops with them as the principal for the acts of their agents/employees.  It'll be interesting to see it play out.

25 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

I find this logic to be BS.

It's not.  Vicarious liability.  Like it or not, it is logically sound.

7 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

Tiger and his girl didn't force feed him alcohol, and I guarantee there was an Uber driver on duty somewhere in the vicinity that could have gotten him home safely. All the poor decisions made that night were made by him.

Agreed but you're missing the point of vicarious liability.  You can make some assumption of risk or comparative fault arguments, but vicarious liability is there to help protect consumers.  You'd probably change your tune when it comes to opioids and stuff right?  Shouldn't the pharm co's be held liable, or just the doctors who prescribed the medication?  It's the same thing here.  When you run a business, you enjoy both the benefits of ownership and the detriment of being the one who has to face the consequences.  The goal of tort law is to compensate the "victim" (however you disagree), and the best way to do it is to allow "victims" to go after deeper pockets instead of some insolvent employee.

[DaveP043]

When I read the headline, I immediately thought that there was no way that Tiger or his restaurant could be responsible in any way for the death of his employee.  Then I read that the employee was drinking at the bar for 3 hours after his shift ended.  It has become common to hold establishments and individual servers responsible for continuing to serve drunk people.  In some states, there are both criminal and civil implications.  So its quite possible that the restaurant and its owner could legitimately be liable in some way.

To get to 0.28 BAC, he had to have had a bunch of drinks, it couldn't have been a surprise that he was over the legal limit.  This wasn't a couple of beers he was sipping, this was a snootful.  I don't care whether he was an alcoholic, a recovering alcoholic, or anything else, if he has 8 shots in 3 hours or something like that, he's been served too many.  I'd bet that this will be settled out of court, for a significant sum.

[NM Golf]

8 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

I would need to see more facts, but I don't see Tiger being liable for wrongful death.  Maybe negligent hiring.  Owners/managers can be held vicariously liable for the acts of their employees.  The buck stops with them as the principal for the acts of their agents/employees.  It'll be interesting to see it play out.

It's not.  Vicarious liability.  Like it or not, it is logically sound.

Agreed but you're missing the point of vicarious liability.  You can make some assumption of risk or comparative fault arguments, but vicarious liability is there to help protect consumers.  You'd probably change your tune when it comes to opioids and stuff right?  Shouldn't the pharm co's be held liable, or just the doctors who prescribed the medication?  It's the same thing here.  When you run a business, you enjoy both the benefits of ownership and the detriment of being the one who has to face the consequences.  The goal of tort law is to compensate the "victim" (however you disagree), and the best way to do it is to allow "victims" to go after deeper pockets instead of some insolvent employee.

BY chance are you a LAWYER? I am actually well versed in this as I ran restaurants for years, I just don't agree. Somewhat off topic, but I feel one of the biggest issues with our country is the fact we have become so litigious. If they want to hold the bartender liable, I can see that. They were directly involved in the situation. But the restaurant owner, come on? What did Tiger do? It's getting out of hand. Suing pharmaceutical companies for someone getting hooked on opioids seems as ridiculous as suing firearms manufacturers for people getting shot. All that is doing is driving up liability insurance prices so that lawyers can make more money. 

[ncates00]

9 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

But the restaurant owner

I've already addressed that issue.

 

9 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

All that is doing is driving up liability insurance prices so that lawyers can make more money

I suppose you're entitled to that view, but it's wrong.  I've already addressed the issue.  A plaintiff isn't going to collect from an insolvent employee.  THEY HAVE NO MONEY.  They can't pay.  Owners can.  You can look at it as lawyers getting paid (unless it's pro bono then of course--it ain't charity work.), but it's about plaintiff's collecting.  You can't collect from a bartender making a modest living for the injuries the plaintiff suffered.

9 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

biggest issues with our country is the fact we have become so litigious

That's a cynical view but I see your point.  I'd rather have a litigious nation where you can air your grievances and become whole monetarily instead of having no forum for recourse and people resort to vigilante justice.  That would go beyond the scope and lead to blood baths.

 

9 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

All that is doing is driving up liability insurance prices so that lawyers can make more money

No it's risk allocation.  It's better for the business to spread their risk through insurance than to eat big costs.  No different than health insurance you get or term life insurance.  Your disdain for lawyers is well-taken, but perhaps you've had crappy lawyers.

Edited May 14, 2019 by ncates00

[NM Golf]

Just now, ncates00 said:

I suppose you're entitled to that view, but it's wrong.  I've already addressed the issue.  A plaintiff isn't going to collect from an insolvent employee.  THEY HAVE NO MONEY.  They can't pay.  Owners can.  You can look at it as lawyers getting paid (unless it's pro bono then of course--it ain't charity work.), but it's about plaintiff's collecting.  You can't collect from a bartender making a modest living for the injuries the plaintiff suffered.

I am most certainly entitled to that view, and I couldn't have said it better myself. So the end goal isn't to "punish" financially the people ultimately responsible for the act, its to get into the pockets of those who have money (restaurant owners) so that the lawyers can benefit financially? It's all about the money, not about who is responsible. 

Oh and you didn't answer my question, ARE YOU BY CHANCE A LAWYER?

[ncates00]

1 minute ago, NM Golf said:

It's all about the money, not about who is responsible. 

100%.  But you're only viewing it through your disdain for lawyers.  You're missing the point of tort law.  You're not seeing the goal of litigation.  Of course lawyers want money.  What do you do for a living?  Do you do it for free?  No.  If a person doesn't want to pay, do it yourself or find someone else--just like in the service industry.  

 

3 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

ARE YOU BY CHANCE A LAWYER?

What do you think?  haha

3 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

responsible

Owners are responsible for acts of their employees while the employee is within their scope of employment.  If you don't like it, lobby your state legislature to change it.

[Groucho Valentine]

 

11 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

BY chance are you a LAWYER? I am actually well versed in this as I ran restaurants for years, I just don't agree. Somewhat off topic, but I feel one of the biggest issues with our country is the fact we have become so litigious. If they want to hold the bartender liable, I can see that. They were directly involved in the situation. But the restaurant owner, come on? What did Tiger do? It's getting out of hand. Suing pharmaceutical companies for someone getting hooked on opioids seems as ridiculous as suing firearms manufacturers for people getting shot. All that is doing is driving up liability insurance prices so that lawyers can make more money. 

Im a lawyer. Im not informed on Florida tort so i may be completely wrong, but in alot of states the circumstances just from what ive read would seem to merit a wrongful death suit. Tiger and his GF could be held liable. 

It doesn't mean the litigants would prevail, im just saying the case unlikely to be thrown out by a judge.  A settlement is the most likely outcome. These things are almost always settled before it sees the inside of a courtroom. Its not to the litigants advantage to have go through a discovery process in these types of civil suits and sometimes the costs of quick settlement outweigh the costs of a trial for defendants. 

[ncates00]

5 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

"punish" financially the people ultimately responsible for the act

Depending on the facts, owners are ultimately responsible because they negligently hired a crappy bartender or didn't provide proper training, etc.  I know it sounds like strict liability, but it's there to provide proper forum for the plaintiff to recover.

7 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

I am most certainly entitled to that view, and I couldn't have said it better myself. So the end goal isn't to "punish" financially the people ultimately responsible for the act, its to get into the pockets of those who have money (restaurant owners) so that the lawyers can benefit financially? It's all about the money, not about who is responsible. 

Oh and you didn't answer my question, ARE YOU BY CHANCE A LAWYER?

And I'm not a plaintiff's lawyer.  My interest is in transactional work.

[Patch]

In Nevada bar tenders, and bar managers/owners can be held liable for all actions incurred by a drunk person,  if they allow a person to get drunk, and leave their establishment. It's a state law. 

In Nevada, all persons who sell/handle alcoholic beverages have to take a state, mandated class on preventing drunkenness, and not letting drunks leave their bar. They recieve a card that says they passed the training. They need this card before they can work at any establishment that sells alcohol. 

Even if a drunk driver is pulled over, without an accident, and found to be over the legal limit on alcohol consumption, the last bar the driver left can be held liable, and can lose their liquor license if authorities push it that far. 

The whole idea of this law is to keep drunks off the streets. 

Not sure if this law exists in the state where TW is being sued in. 

[NM Golf]

9 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

100%.  But you're only viewing it through your disdain for lawyers.  You're missing the point of tort law.  You're not seeing the goal of litigation.  Of course lawyers want money.  What do you do for a living?  Do you do it for free?  No.  If a person doesn't want to pay, do it yourself or find someone else--just like in the service industry.  

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.

10 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

Owners are responsible for acts of their employees while the employee is within their scope of employment. 

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

13 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

If you don't like it, lobby your state legislature to change it.

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. 

19 minutes ago, ncates00 said:

And I'm not a plaintiff's lawyer.  My interest is in transactional work.

A lawyer is a lawyer. 😜

[DaveP043]

8 minutes ago, Patch said:

In Nevada bar tenders, and bar managers/owners can be held liable for all actions incurred by a drunk person,  if they allow a person to get drunk, and leave their establishment. It's a state law. 

In Nevada, all persons who sell/handle alcoholic beverages have to take a state, mandated class on preventing drunkenness, and not letting drunks leave their bar. They recieve a card that says they passed the training. They need this card before they can work at any establishment that sells alcohol. 

Even if a drunk driver is pulled over, without an accident, and found to be over the legal limit on alcohol consumption, the last bar the driver left can be held liable, and can lose their liquor license if authorities push it that far. 

The whole idea of this law is to keep drunks off the streets. 

Not sure if this law exists in the state where TW is being sued in. 

I found this simplified explanation of the Florida DramShop laws:

Florida Dram Shop Law

---

Expert Tampa car accident attorneys at Lorenzo & Lorenzo explain Florida Dram Shop Law A person decides to go to a bar after work to get a few drinks and relax. That person ends up drinking more than a few, and then...

Quote

A person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person of lawful drinking age shall not thereby become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such person, except that a person who willfully and unlawfully sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person who is not of lawful drinking age or who knowingly serves a person habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages may become liable for injury or damage caused by or resulting from the intoxication of such minor or person.

Whether the management knew that this employee was addicted to alcohol seems to be an essential part of the issue, its not enough that he continued to be served after he was visibly drunk.

Whether we agree with the premise of these dramshop laws or not, they exist.  

[boogielicious]

44 minutes ago, NM Golf said:

BY chance are you a LAWYER? I am actually well versed in this as I ran restaurants for years, I just don't agree. Somewhat off topic, but I feel one of the biggest issues with our country is the fact we have become so litigious. If they want to hold the bartender liable, I can see that. They were directly involved in the situation. But the restaurant owner, come on? What did Tiger do? It's getting out of hand. Suing pharmaceutical companies for someone getting hooked on opioids seems as ridiculous as suing firearms manufacturers for people getting shot. All that is doing is driving up liability insurance prices so that lawyers can make more money. 

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. 

[NM Golf]

5 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Whether we agree with the premise of these dramshop laws or not, they exist.  

Oh I know they exist. They do NOTHING to curb drunk driving or to promote responsible consumption of alcohol. 

In New Mexico anyone who serves or even sells package alcohol has to attend an Alcohol Servers class and get certified. You then have to carry your card around with you and get recertified every 4 years. Sounds great, yet we are still among the worst states in the country for alcohol related deaths. 

Like I said the laws allowing for bar owners to be liable for their employees over serving are not on the books to try and cut down on the practice. They are there to make sure the lawyers have someone rich enough to sue. 

[chspeed]

1 hour ago, ncates00 said:

Owners are responsible for acts of their employees while the employee is within their scope of employment.  If you don't like it, lobby your state legislature to change it.

And I agree with this, as an employer. I also have a physician wife, who's in the line of fire of the worst offender of ridiculous litigation, medical malpractice.

<OT Rant>

Is there such a thing as medical malpractice? Of course. Should someone be compensated for proven malpractice? Of course. But lack of reward caps, contingency agreements, etc. are all hard-fought victories by lawyers that damage the medical field for most doctors and patients alike, while fattening the pockets of lawyers.

</OT Rant>

Edited May 14, 2019 by chspeed