Jump to content

NM Golf

Established Member
  • Content Count

    2,602
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

NM Golf last won the day on December 10 2018

NM Golf had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

371 One of the All-Time Greats

1 Follower

About NM Golf

  • Rank
    You can talk to a fade, but a hook won't listen
  • Birthday 10/04/1971

Personal Information

  • Your Location
    New Mexico

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    +0.5
  • Handedness
    Righty
  • GAME Golf Username
    nmgolf

Recent Profile Visitors

4,161 profile views
  1. My sister-in-law allows both her teenage daughters to vape saying "it's not bad for you". She's a lawyer so you can't debate anything with her because her law degree automatically makes her smarter than everyone else (according to her). She also allows them to smoke weed, but draws the line at alcohol because she "picks her battles" and alcohol is bad for you. I just hope her kids don't pay for her poor parenting later in life with addictions and pulmonary problems.
  2. Don't think I have ever been bored playing golf. I've been Irritated, frustrated, and furious, but never bored.
  3. I am a serious golfer, although not to the point of being ridiculous. I play by the rules, all the time, but I really don't care if the people I am playing with do (unless we are playing for something). I do not play for the exercise nor for the social aspect, but I like to walk and most of my friends I made on the golf course. I am trying to play my best every time I tee it up and when I do not score well it makes the round significantly less enjoyable. The vast majority of my rounds are competitive, either tournaments or money games.
  4. A wife and 3 children. Nothing has done more harm to my game than them. That being said I wouldn't trade them for the world.
  5. I think my views on personal liability and lawyers has been well documented on this thread, but I think you take it too far. Bars and restaurants are not there to get someone drunk. They are there to provide food, drink, possibly entertainment, but not to get people completely plastered. A bar or restaurant must provide alcohol in a responsible way, it's right there on the liquor license. If you don't you are liable. Now I think the whole liability thing and who is liable may be a bit out of hand, but the liquor establishment most definitely shares in the responsibility not to serve people to the point of extreme intoxication. It's for the safety and good of the community if nothing else.
  6. I only mention him not being there because had he been there maybe he bought the guy a drink or was adding to the "party" atmosphere. So would have been directly involved. I cannot believe that Tiger would have that much day to day contact with the restaurant, but his girlfriend does run it so...? I just don't see Tiger signing off on anything as trivial as the hiring of a bartender. I imagine, as you do as well, that his team of lawyers probably has contingency plans after contingency plans just for problems like this. I don't imagine we will see Tiger destitute from this lawsuit anytime soon. That's true, just because he is named doesn't mean they have any sort of case. That being said, often times people with bank accounts like Tiger's will settle just to make it go away. I mean what's $250,000 to someone like Tiger. He wouldn't even miss it, and it probably would be paid by his insurance anyway. Therein lies the problem, people sue just to try and make a buck knowing they will often get paid on even the most imaginary of lawsuits.
  7. 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.
  8. Here's the thing too, I guarantee that bar is owned by a company owned by Tiger. Tiger didn't write a personal check for the place. I'm sure it's owned by one of his corporations. The owners of corporations are protected from personal liability for business debts or lawsuits. So his corporation could, in theory, be sued, but in this case Tiger himself has been named. Why? To get to the big money. It's not about blame, responsibility, or liability. It's about the cash. I wonder what percentage the lawyers involved are getting? There is a liberal sprinkling of his opinions throughout as well, whether you want to see it or not. It's not exactly a lesson in tort law.
  9. I find myself in the middle here somewhere between the apathetic responses of @David in FL and the bleeding heart of @DeadMan. I agree that we tend to not place responsibility with those who deserve it, but most certainly you can also place blame with a bartender for over serving a customer to the point of it being dangerous. I worked as a bartender for years and you most certainly know when someone has had too much. This guy was grossly over served to get to a blood alcohol level that high. I am surprised he was conscious. Even if he was an alcoholic, you have to place some blame with him for getting in his car after consuming that much alcohol. He might not be able to "choose" not to drink, be he most certainly had the ability to choose not to drive. The bartender also has to shoulder some of the blame for serving someone that much. Even if he did not act intoxicated (highly doubtful) you have to know someone is drunk once they have consumed 10+ drinks in a three hour period. What I continue to have an issue with is the laws that allow additional defendants to be named for no other reason than they have deeper pockets. It is a stretch, to say the least, that Tiger Woods holds any responsibility for this guy at all. He is named ONLY because some scummy ambulance chasing lawyer saw dollar $igns. I mean hold the bartender, the manager (maybe), and the bar (if proper protocols were not in place) liable; the were involved (directly and indirectly). But the rich owner? Please! And what about the dead guy? Is he not most responsible for his own demise? Of course he is, yet he is made out to be a victim so that lawyers can line their pockets.
  10. I really don't know how long its been, but I know I started putting in in my 20's once I moved out of my parents' house. I'm 47 now. I've never won so you officially suck! 😜
  11. 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.
  12. SIX YEARS!? My rejections go back to when you actually did it using snail mail! My father won in 2010 and he and I went to the Monday practice round.
  13. 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. 😜
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...