Tiger Woods Being Sued for Wrongful Death of Bartender

[Vinsk]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

There can be legal obligations to act. And I mean beyond the world of Seinfeld.

But quite seriously - I forget the term, but it's something like a "required actor" or something - to report things (like sexual abuse) with my student athletes or anyone else, and I'm also required to step in and provide CPR and some other types of things having been trained for it. Compulsory responder? I don't know what the term is, but I can actually get in trouble if I fail to act when I should. And, as we've already noted, bartenders, etc. are legally obligated in many ways to ensure the safety of not only their customers but those who might be harmed by them.

‘Duty to rescue.’ It can get a little sticky but yes, you are correct.

[David in FL]

54 minutes ago, iacas said:

Completely wrong.

I didn't say he explained what the verdict should be, only that the laws exist and why, with examples.

Not wrong.

When an attorney “explains” the law, it as often than not reflects his personal perspective and bias.

 

[iacas]

36 minutes ago, David in FL said:

Not wrong.

Nope, you were wrong. He wasn't arguing for an outcome, he was mostly just stating what the law does, the history of the law, etc.

You've generally been in the wrong on this, as defined by the courts/current law.

You're trying to discuss the "moral" side of things, but that's largely irrelevant right now: this will play out under the laws at hand.

[TussinMan]

On 5/14/2019 at 10:17 AM, DaveP043 said:

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.

Just reading the title I thought it was a cash grab but this definitely sounds like the owner/business could realistically be liability. 

You let your own employee stay after his shift and drink for 3 straight hours before he went home. There's no way  you can't say the business wasn't at least somewhat liable, especially if they let him do it for free  

 

[ncates00]

45 minutes ago, David in FL said:

When an attorney “explains” the law, it as often than not reflects his personal perspective and bias.

You clearly don't know what you're talking about here.  Contrary to what you might think, attorneys are bound by the ABA standards of professional conduct.  Lawyers cannot lie in any court document or proceeding as that is grounds for disciplinary action, sanctions, and even disbarment under Rule 11 and other applicable rules.  Lawyers have a duty to accurately portray what the law is in a particular jurisdiction.  However, lawyers are also bound to zealously advocate for their clients.  Lawyers can come up with creative arguments and argue "loopholes" as some may call them, to win for their clients (and of course themselves).  That's part of the adversarial system.  It pits opposing lawyers against each other to win for their clients and tries to ensure each side has adequate representation.  Nonetheless, no matter how a lawyer may try to "spin" the facts or argue a "loophole," the law is the law.  

Comments like yours and from others are based mostly upon anecdotal stories and feelings they have and are not based upon any actual knowledge or experience in the legal field.  Even those people who have some experience as a client, still don't know the ins and outs of the legal system.  I'm not saying it's not flawed and doesn't need some changes, but it's pretty good by and large. 

We're getting way off topic, but to me, the constant battle in the legal system boils down to: rules v. standards.  Rules are objective and we know what the law is.  There will be some loopholes if the facts of a case don't fall specifically within the bounds of a given rule, but at least you know the law.  Example: speed limit is 55 mph.  That's a rule.  If you go even one mile over the limit, under a "rules" system, you should get the maximum penalty each every time regardless of excuse or whatever.  Standards try to incorporate "real life" and the subjective "let's look at the equities of the case" vibe.  Example: speed limit is 55 mph, but the cop lets people go so long as they don't go over his rule of thumb of, I dunno, 65 mph.  This allows for a lot of leeway and people can also argue discrimination and yadda yadda.  So see, it goes back and forth on whether we want rules or standards, and it gets further complicated because state laws are not uniform across the land as states can make their own state laws.

Bringing this back to Tiger's case, I don't know FL tort law, but the general rule is employers are vicariously liable for the conduct of their employees while they are within the scope of their employment.  This rule doesn't generally include "coming and going" to work, but there are exceptions to this rule.  

1 hour ago, Vinsk said:

‘Duty to rescue.’ It can get a little sticky but yes, you are correct.

@iacas Generally, moral obligations aside, you don't have a duty to act unless you have a legal obligation to do so.  States have their own laws on this and can vary greatly.  Some states impose no duty on bystanders to intervene, while on the other extreme some not only impose a duty but failure to do so may result in a fine or worse.  It depends on the facts and the jurisdiction.

Edited May 15, 2019 by ncates00

[DeadMan]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

There can be legal obligations to act. And I mean beyond the world of Seinfeld.

But quite seriously - I forget the term, but it's something like a "required actor" or something - to report things (like sexual abuse) with my student athletes or anyone else, and I'm also required to step in and provide CPR and some other types of things having been trained for it. Compulsory responder? I don't know what the term is, but I can actually get in trouble if I fail to act when I should. And, as we've already noted, bartenders, etc. are legally obligated in many ways to ensure the safety of not only their customers but those who might be harmed by them.

Mandatory reporter is the term you're looking for.

[David in FL]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

Nope, you were wrong. He wasn't arguing for an outcome, he was mostly just stating what the law does, the history of the law, etc.

You've generally been in the wrong on this, as defined by the courts/current law.

You're trying to discuss the "moral" side of things, but that's largely irrelevant right now: this will play out under the laws at hand.

I’m absolutely discussing the moral side of this.

And just because one attorney or even to agrees with you doesn’t mean that you’re on the right side either morally or even legally.  That’s why the law is specifically built around an adversarial relationship…

Regardless, as I’ve said, I know I’m on the my minority side of this moral argument.

A pity, but it is what it is…

I’ll stop now.  

 

 

[colin007]

What if the guy had gone home and beaten his wife and put her in a coma? Would her family be able to sue Tiger?

[ncates00]

2 minutes ago, colin007 said:

What if the guy had gone home and beaten his wife and put her in a coma? Would her family be able to sue Tiger?

Good hypo, but likely no.  First, him being at home definitely ends the scope of his employment.  So no vicarious liability.  But if you keep going for argument's sake, still likely no liability because unlike the immediacy and foreseeability of a car accident, him beating up his wife is probably not a foreseeable consequence to hold Tiger liable.  That would likely be a break in the causal link and too far remote.

[Lihu]

On 5/14/2019 at 7:37 AM, saevel25 said:

I find this logic to be BS.

Totally... it’s like the drinker doesn’t take responsibility for his own actions? 

[leftybutnotPM]

1 hour ago, Lihu said:

Totally... it’s like the drinker doesn’t take responsibility for his own actions? 

What if you had a student who was known to be (and knew herself to be) diabetic and you stood by and allowed her to have lots and lots of sugary drinks - or gave her lots of sweets to her to the point where she went into a diabetic coma when you KNEW she was diabetic? You would bear responsibility.

A person who is served alcohol to excess, even if they aren't commonly known to have a drinking problem, but have clearly consumed an excessive amount can easily foresee success in a case against the server when they leave and drive home drunk and get into trouble. 

Whether you think it's "BS" or otherwise isn't really relevant.

[pganapathy]

Just like in the other post, I accept that I am going to be slated for my views, but so be it.

Here goes.  The bar and bar tender have no responsibility.  One person can drink two pegs over 1 hour and be unable to walk.  Another can drink six pegs in the same time and just be warming up.  In the event a person is slurring/staggering all over the place, then I agree that the bar shouldn't serve him anymore, but that is only for his own good.  At the end of it, the person needs to make a decision to stop drinking, and if he is too high, figure out a safe way to get home, say cab or call a friend.  It is not the bar's responsibility to monitor or control that.

The law is so screwed up, that it is just about ensuring you get money by picking on deep pockets.  Kinda reminds me of that case recently where a woman sued Samsung because she managed to get one of their phones stuck inside her vagina while masturbating.  INSANE is not the word

[leftybutnotPM]

1 hour ago, pganapathy said:

At the end of it, the person needs to make a decision to stop drinking, and if he is too high, figure out a safe way to get home, say cab or call a friend. 

Is this what sober people do? No. The whole point is that if someone is "too high" he is not going to behave rationally. This is why others have a duty of care. We help each other and some need it more than others.

As for the mobile phone story. It is not true. It did not happen. The below is from Snopes.

Edited May 16, 2019 by leftybutnotPM

[iacas]

2 hours ago, pganapathy said:

then I agree that the bar shouldn't serve him anymore

You just negated everything else you were saying.

You agree with the law.

[Hardspoon]

2 hours ago, pganapathy said:

Here goes.  The bar and bar tender have no responsibility. 

Who needs to know silly things like “all the actual facts in the case”, am I right?

Even if you accept the premise that a consumer of alcohol is completely responsible for their own actions, there are a lot of things the bar/restaurant could have done that would place some additional responsibility on their shoulders. 

[Bucki1968]

Guy drinks at a bar where he works....guy gets in car and dies in crash (after work)....bartender that served him is liable?.....bartender employed by Tiger Woods' restaurant....who has the most $? I don't know if it has already been mentioned but I would think that Tiger's restaurant is some sort of corporation/LLC or something. Insurance covers the business for this type of thing?

[ScouseJohnny]

7 hours ago, leftybutnotPM said:

What if you had a student who was known to be (and knew herself to be) diabetic and you stood by and allowed her to have lots and lots of sugary drinks - or gave her lots of sweets to her to the point where she went into a diabetic coma when you KNEW she was diabetic? You would bear responsibility. 

I agree with your sentiment. However:

Florida doesn't have a statute about knowingly feeding candy to a diabetic. It does have a "dram shop" statute about knowingly serving booze to an alcoholic.

768.125. Liability for injury or damage resulting from intoxication.

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.

The Florida statute is unusual. Many states have "dram shop" statutes that refer to over-serving (serving someone already drunk). Florida's statute includes knowingly serving an habitual drunkard, too.

I ran the statute's citation through Lexis Nexis this morning, out of curiosity. Many cases decided under the statute show that if you knowingly serve an alcoholic, you will be on the hook for their negligent actions.

The most relevant case is probably Okeechobee Aerie 4137, Fraternal Order of Eagles, Inc. v. Wilde, 199 So. 3d 333 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016).

It was summarized at this legal news site: http://floridadefenders.com/blog/huge-settlement-case-drunk-driver-leaving-eagles-club-okeechobee-county-fl

But in essence, this is what happened: A member of a private club who was well know at that establishment and spent much of his time there getting wasted on a frequent basis, decided to engage in yet another day's drinking at his club. He then got in his car, pulled out of the parking lot, and slammed into a motorcyclist who suffered horrible injuries.

As per the news story above:

On May 16, 2014, a civil case against the Eagles Club that was serving Felt (the driver) came to a close with an $11.1 million verdict in favor of Wilde (the motorcyclist) for the injuries that he sustained in the accident.  Those injuries included head injuries that cause memory issues, trouble with his eyes and trouble standing.  The verdict ended up being the largest in Okeechobee County history.

The fact that it was an Eagles Club that is the focus of the lawsuit is important here because that is where the knowledge of Felt’s drinking habits came in to play.  If Felt was a club member and drank like he did the day of the accident at that Eagles Club often, it would be reasonable for the jury to find that he was a known “habitual drunkard” for the purposes of the law.

Note: the case settled after a successful appeal by the motorcyclist against an earlier decision - an error in law by a lower court that had allowed another, irrelevant statute to bear upon the proceedings. Faced with a new trial, in which the "dram shop" statute alone would be the principal issue, the insurer for the club folded and settled with the plaintiff.

Note: I am not an attorney, just a humble academic. None of this is professional legal advice.

Edited May 16, 2019 by ScouseJohnny

[NM Golf]

okay @ncates00 (or any other lawyer on here) I have a question. I would think that Tiger would separate or "protect" himself by buying and operating that bar/restaurant using a corporation or LLC? The owners of LLCs and corporations should be protected from personal liability. Isn't that the whole reason why someone would create the corporation or LLC? So explain to me how someone could work around that to name Tiger personally in the lawsuit? Especially of he wasn't even there.