Tiger Woods Being Sued for Wrongful Death of Bartender

[Tiga Tiga Woods Yall]

I have it on good authority that Tiger and his legal team are following this thread closely. 

[Hardspoon]

3 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

I'd hate to own and bar or restaurant and have to hire a bartender and have to judge whether he would be able to know when to stop serving a customer.  And what if one night he got lax or misjudged how drunk a customer was.  So now I'M going to get sued even though I wasn't there?

Screw it, I’m just gonna start copy pasting:

You guys are all constructing a simple situation: “Bar serves drunk guy, he does something stupid.”

But, you don’t know the actual facts. There are a lot of things the bar ownership and staff/management may have done (either specific negligent actions that evening or general policies) that would make them also partially responsible for what occurred. 

(I feel like a broken record at this point)

[chspeed]

5 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

Suppose I'm sitting there and I see the guy is drunk.  Would I be responsible for not taking his keys away?  As a patron, wouldn't I be responsible for letting this drunk get into his car?  Couldn't I be sued for letting this drunk get into his car?  After all, I saw him stagger out of the place and get into his car.  How much responsibility should I bear?

This has been covered already. No, you're not responsible, don't worry, nobody is going to sue you for not being a good person.

[pganapathy]

Let me get this straight.  The bar is responsible because he decided to drive.  If he had taken a cab home, and then on the way decided to stop for a swim in the ocean, and then drowned, would the bar still be responsible.  Or is the bar responsible for anything that happens to a patron after he leaves the bar having had a drink.

Another point, in the case of a take-away, the bar/outlet is not responsible for anything the patron does, correct.  In that case, why was McDonalds sued for that idiotic lady who kept a cup of coffee between her thighs and burned herself. 

This is exactly what I mean by selective responsibility.  McD has money so sue them.

Totally illogical and a sue anybody who has money culture

[chspeed]

8 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

I'd hate to own and bar or restaurant and have to hire a bartender and have to judge whether he would be able to know when to stop serving a customer.  And what if one night he got lax or misjudged how drunk a customer was.

So don't own a bar. Problem solved.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, pganapathy said:

Let me get this straight.  The bar is responsible because he decided to drive.  If he had taken a cab home, and then on the way decided to stop for a swim in the ocean, and then drowned, would the bar still be responsible.  Or is the bar responsible for anything that happens to a patron after he leaves the bar having had a drink.

Another point, in the case of a take-away, the bar/outlet is not responsible for anything the patron does, correct.  In that case, why was McDonalds sued for that idiotic lady who kept a cup of coffee between her thighs and burned herself. 

This is exactly what I mean by selective responsibility.  McD has money so sue them.

Totally illogical and a sue anybody who has money culture

@pganapathy, just stop posting in this topic.

[Hardspoon]

1 minute ago, pganapathy said:

Let me get this straight.  The bar is responsible because he decided to drive.  If he had taken a cab home, and then on the way decided to stop for a swim in the ocean, and then drowned, would the bar still be responsible.  Or is the bar responsible for anything that happens to a patron after he leaves the bar having had a drink.

You guys are all constructing a simple situation: “Bar serves drunk guy, he does something stupid.”

But, you don’t know the actual facts. There are a lot of things the bar ownership and staff/management may have done (either specific negligent actions that evening or general policies) that would make them also partially responsible for what occurred. 

 (I feel like a broken record at this point)

[Herkimer]

1 minute ago, pganapathy said:

Let me get this straight.  The bar is responsible because he decided to drive.  If he had taken a cab home, and then on the way decided to stop for a swim in the ocean, and then drowned, would the bar still be responsible.  Or is the bar responsible for anything that happens to a patron after he leaves the bar having had a drink.

Another point, in the case of a take-away, the bar/outlet is not responsible for anything the patron does, correct.  In that case, why was McDonalds sued for that idiotic lady who kept a cup of coffee between her thighs and burned herself. 

This is exactly what I mean by selective responsibility.  McD has money so sue them.

Totally illogical and a sue anybody who has money culture

I think I agree with you.  And I certainly agree with you about the idiotic McDonald's case.  So McDonald's was forced to serve lukewarm coffee because of that idiot lady?  You can see what kind of society we'll end up with.  A 2-drink maximum for anyone out for dinner and lukewarm coffee so patrons won't spill some and burn themselves. 

[Hardspoon]

2 minutes ago, Herkimer said:

And I certainly agree with you about the idiotic McDonald's case.

Ignorance is bliss!

But, if you want to actually educate yourself about the case you have a fully-formed opinion on, here you go:

What a lot of people get wrong about the infamous 1994 McDonald’s hot coffee lawsuit

---

Adam Ruins Everything explains that the case wasn’t about greed, but about a working-class...

 

[Michael Barbato]

On 5/14/2019 at 10:37 AM, saevel25 said:

I find this logic to be BS.

We can't babysit everyone's poorly raised children. Sorry for your lose , but really ?

[PeaceFrogg]

14 hours ago, ScouseJohnny said:

Outside of the legal arguments, I agree with you. The guy who voluntarily tipped it down his own throat should bear the lion's share, if not all, of the responsibility for the poor decisions he made thereafter. The bartender just served it up, on request, like a guy pumping gas.

 

Wow, that is just wrong on every level.

[saevel25]

4 minutes ago, Michael Barbato said:

We can't babysit everyone's poorly raised children. Sorry for your lose , but really ?

Huh? Did you read what I was responding to with my comment? Also, did you notice I switched my opinion on the matter in a later post?

[PeaceFrogg]

45 minutes ago, Michael Barbato said:

We can't babysit everyone's poorly raised children. Sorry for your lose , but really ?

Yikes...I can't even begin to say how wrong this thought process is.

[DaveP043]

I read the posts, and I see many people looking at this as an "either/or" problem.  Either the guy is completely responsible, or the bar is completely responsible.  To me, each one bears a portion of the overall responsibility.  

And why is the bar at least partially responsible?  The bar has made an agreement with the state.  The state allows the bar to make money by serving alcohol to its patrons.  In return, the bar is required to follow certain standards, including assuming responsibility in certain cases if it serves an inebriated customer.  The bar owners know this going in, they've made the deal with the state when they got their license.  Its up to the bar owners and management to make sure that their employees are trained and managed to stay within the legal requirements.  If the place doesn't want that responsibility, they don't have to serve alcohol.

[PeaceFrogg]

 

20 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

I read the posts, and I see many people looking at this as an "either/or" problem.  Either the guy is completely responsible, or the bar is completely responsible.  To me, each one bears a portion of the overall responsibility.  

 

I don't think a single poster has exclaimed an opinion that the bar was solely responsible.

Edited May 17, 2019 by PeaceFrogg
To delete duplicate quote

[iacas]

5 minutes ago, PeaceFrogg said:

I don't think a single poster has exclaimed an opinion that the bar was solely responsible.

No but some of the responses are erecting and then arguing against that straw man.

[DaveP043]

26 minutes ago, PeaceFrogg said:

 

I don't think a single poster has exclaimed an opinion that the bar was solely responsible.

 

A significant number have said that the guy was 100% responsible, and that the bar should bear no responsibility at all.

[PeaceFrogg]

26 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

A significant number have said that the guy was 100% responsible, and that the bar should bear no responsibility at all.

Yes, but no one arguing the other side said the bar is 100% responsible as you posted.