Pub at fault for fatal DUI

[Police Moderator]

LAWSUIT: Louisville pub at fault for fatal DUI
Posted: Oct 28, 2010

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB Fox 41) -- The family of a man who died in an accident in Sept. 2009 has filed a lawsuit claiming that the man's death was at least partially the fault of a local pub.

According to the suit, Terrance Anthony Klein was "intoxicated and under the influence of alcohol" on Sept. 30, 2009 when he slammed into a parked semi-truck on northbound I-71. Klein died as a result of the accident.

The suit was filed by the guardian of Klein's four children, on their behalf, against the R. Place Pub in the 9600 block of Whipps Mill Road. It claims that Klein consumed alcohol at the bar a short time before the accident, and that the bar was negligent in that it allowed him to become intoxicated and drive his vehicle.

Specifically, it claims that the bar, "sold or delivered alcoholic beverages to Terrance Anthony Klein when it knew or should have known he was actually or apparently under the influence of alcoholic beverages and that there was a reasonable likelihood he would be operating a motor vehicle." It adds that, "such sales and service were a substantial factor in causing and/or contributing to his intoxication and his subsequent motor vehicle collision and death."

Read more: fox41.com

[daworm]

Let's sue Frito-Lay for every person who has a heart attack, while we're at it. Hell, let's sue the government for the 21st amendment, because if they hadn't passed that, then there would have been no bar, and then the idiot wouldn't have got drunk and killed his dumb self.

[Police Moderator]

Don't forget to add the growers of the malt and barley as plaintiffs also. The makers of the car he drove should also be listed as "At faults".

[el Gusano]

If not for glasses, cans or bottles, there would have been nothing to hold the beer.

[JC]

It's the Dram Shop....

The first thing you learn before allowed to sell alcohol is that you don't sell to the intoxicated

[ssmynkint]

Road makers! Sue the road makers. the pavers, the suveyors! Sue EVERYONE, but don't take personal responsibility! It's all the fault of that Godless Pinko-Commie non-American Muslim loving Socialistic government we elected.

[daworm]

The first thing you learn before allowed to sell alcohol is that you don't sell to the intoxicated

Sure, but most everyone chooses to get drunk, they don't have it forced on them. Passing the blame onto someone else is part of the problem we have as a society today. Everything is someone else's fault.

[BlackFox]

We should outlaw alcohol. Then no one would be able to get it. Problem solved.

[JC]

Nov 1, 2010 12:28:30 GMT -5 daworm said:

The first thing you learn before allowed to sell alcohol is that you don't sell to the intoxicated

Sure, but most everyone chooses to get drunk, they don't have it forced on them. Passing the blame onto someone else is part of the problem we have as a society today. Everything is someone else's fault.

It's like selling a gun to a known felon.
Selling an airplane to a known terrorist.
Selling booze to someone you know is intoxicated.

If you do... there's a good chance someone will get killed.

I'm not a blame thrower and I do agree with you and everyone else regarding the lawsiut....I'm just sayin' there's things that you just don't do.

[el Gusano]

Perhaps we should require ID to buy alcohol, and limit the amount a person can buy in a month. That way, we can be relatively certain that he won't accumulate enough to get drunk and hurt someone else. (I can't wait for Sam's to get sued because they sold someone a gallon bottle of Jack Daniel's, and they should have known the person would get drunk and done something stupid.)

With guns, it's already illegal for a known felon to own a gun. And some misdemeanors. Known terrorists are already criminals.

Until they've done something wrong, however, the average drinker is not a criminal.

[erinslion]

Geeze guys, I don't know where to fall on this. It is possible the guy drank at several bars, that he had something in the car, etc. On the other hand, I have been a bartender in two states that required me to attend classes and carry card that represents, among other things, my acknowledgment of my responsibility NOT to over serve. Of course, the gap between theory and practice is rather a large one. Technically, I'd either have to serve you no more than a shot or beer per hour or, conversely, keep you in the bar a number of hours equivalent to the number of shots/beers you've had. And of course, there is the "call a cab" maneuver which I have done several times and have gone so far as to drive the drunk home myself after my shift ended.

Yes, the idiot who got drunk and drove should have been more responsible, should have made better choices. No argument from me there. It does not negate however the responsibility of the bartender not to over serve.

I have always found that difficult to resolve in my own mind because as a bartender the only authority you have is to not serve someone. If they sit there and get hammered and then head to the parking lot I don't have any authority to stop them. I can try to talk them out of it, I can try to find an alternative means of transport, but I can't restrain them or take their keys. I suppose an observant server who has exhausted all other options could call the police and alert them that, "Hey, this guy is getting in his car and he is hammered." It shouldn't be the role of the police to babysit drunks but at this point the guy is breaking the law and presenting a real danger to the public. On the other hand, if I the bartender call the police and they arrest the guy a mile down the road for DUI, it can STILL come back on me that I over-served him.

A conscientious bartender is between a rock and a hard place, of course there are a great many bartenders who despite knowing their responsibility will not hesitate to serve someone until they are totally fucked. I see it every single night.

So, there is some legal culpability on the part of the server, but my gut instinct is that the family (sorry for the loss) are being assholes, trying to make a buck off of a tragic incident.

I am all for personal choice and personal responsibility. I wholeheartedly believe in these principals, but it is disheartening to see people every single night fail to exercise responsibility in conjunction with their choices. The police, already overworked and underpaid, cannot possibly catch every drunk driver and those that drive intoxicated and don't get caught and don't kill themselves or someone else perpetuate the myth among alcoholics that it's ok.

I absolutely do not think alcohol ought to be outlawed. Quite the opposite actually and I suppose that gives me at least a slight Libertarian bent, but as a personal observation on humanity based on 20+ years of playing and working in bars (as well as more than a few years spent as an alcoholic myself, much better now thank you) I have to say that there is a fair percentage of the population that is just too damned weak willed, weak minded and supremely selfish to be trusted do anything anywhere. You want to kill yourself? Go right ahead, your choice pally, but when you endanger others through your irresponsibility it goes beyond personal choice and enters the realm of public menace.

I have known some drunks in my time and the telling thing is that on the occasions when they drove drunk their concern was "avoiding the cops." Never once did any of them consider that they might smash in to a telephone pole, hit a kid on a bike, roll their car or otherwise bring about loss of property and life. Consider that. The concern isn't to avoid breaking the law or endangering life and limb, the concern is to not get caught. It is an aspect of human behavior that despite my liberal tendencies makes me every bit as cynical and nasty as the crustiest curmudgeons on this board.

Incidentally, Louisville, Kentucky is my home town and I have tended bar there so I know that the server HAD to take the same course and knew his/her potential culpability. On the other hand, unless bars start instituting a "take your keys at the door" policy (yeah, that'll fly) a servers hands are tied too often.

[Police Moderator]

Well stated, EL.

[daworm]

If there were proof the bartender was at fault, he would have been charged with a crime already. A civil suit, however, doesn't have the same burden of proof (and the unfairness of that can be saved for another topic).

[Tsavodiner]

Nov 1, 2010 12:28:30 GMT -5 daworm said:

The first thing you learn before allowed to sell alcohol is that you don't sell to the intoxicated

Sure, but most everyone chooses to get drunk, they don't have it forced on them. Passing the blame onto someone else is part of the problem we have as a society today. Everything is someone else's fault.

You've sat in enough dive bars in this town just like I have to know there were and ARE bartenders who would serve a dead possum if it brought them money; those who will tank up their friends for tips only; guys like this little asshole from CBC downtown who'll drink 'til dawn then go kill a mother of two at Christmas....

DAMN STRAIGHT dram shop liability! It's what by and large put the Paul "G"s and E.L. "P"s of the world out of a business people of their ilk had no fucking BUSINESS being in to start with.

DAMN hard to find those "shadow" licensees with enough liability protection to pass muster these days!

[Fatally Yours]

Passing the blame onto someone else is part of the problem we have as a society today. Everything is someone else's fault.

This (and PT Barnam's addage) keeps Dookie from standing in the soup line .

[daworm]

You've sat in enough dive bars in this town just like I have to know there were and ARE bartenders who would serve a dead possum if it brought them money;

There certainly are. No doubt about it. There are liquor stores who'll sell by the case, too. What's the difference? Consumption on premises? The drinker is still the one who started the whole thing. The bartender didn't tie him to the bar and funnel booze down his throat at gunpoint. Yes, bartenders should cut people off when they've had too much, and if this guy had failed to do so, he should be on the receiving end of criminal charges. That doesn't seem to be the case here, though. Plus, it places the burden of deciding if someone has had too much on someone whose attentions are quite often divided. Ever seen how busy a bartender can be? You expect him or her to give field sobriety checks to the purchaser for each and every drink they serve?

By allowing this sort of civil suit to proceed, ANY bartender, grocery store clerk, liquor store owner, party host, etc. can be sued by ANYBODY that has a DUI, even if there is no criminal action involved. I don't think that is right. It is passing the blame. I am not my brother's keeper.

[JC]

Nov 3, 2010 9:31:17 GMT -5 daworm said:

You've sat in enough dive bars in this town just like I have to know there were and ARE bartenders who would serve a dead possum if it brought them money;

There certainly are. No doubt about it. There are liquor stores who'll sell by the case, too. What's the difference? Consumption on premises? The drinker is still the one who started the whole thing. The bartender didn't tie him to the bar and funnel booze down his throat at gunpoint. Yes, bartenders should cut people off when they've had too much, and if this guy had failed to do so, he should be on the receiving end of criminal charges. That doesn't seem to be the case here, though. Plus, it places the burden of deciding if someone has had too much on someone whose attentions are quite often divided. Ever seen how busy a bartender can be? You expect him or her to give field sobriety checks to the purchaser for each and every drink they serve?

By allowing this sort of civil suit to proceed, ANY bartender, grocery store clerk, liquor store owner, party host, etc. can be sued by ANYBODY that has a DUI, even if there is no criminal action involved. I don't think that is right. It is passing the blame. I am not my brother's keeper.

I've refused to sell beer to people who were drunk.
It's not that hard. Really.

And the difference between the liquor store and the bar is where the person will be drinking.
People do not drink a case of Jack at the liquor store and then drive home. they buy the liquor, leave, then drink it at home.
The difference is not having to drive drunk.

This is not passing the blame. I am not a blame passer....
But there is a thing called contributing.
If a bartender contributes to the over intoxication, then he becomes partly responsible in his negligence by not observing how much his customers have consumed.

It doesn't really matter how busy that bartender is.
No field sobriety test needed. It's completely upto the server.
It's not that difficult to tell when someone has had too much to drink. Really, it's not.

[osrb]

Easy way to fix the problem. Have a federal mandate that ALL cars be equipped with a breathalyzer connected to the ignition.

There fixed the problem.

[Scarlet&Gray]

Limit one drink per sitting and or 2 hours.

[Police Moderator]

Easy way to fix the problem. Have a federal mandate that ALL cars be equipped with a breathalyzer connected to the ignition.

There fixed the problem.

Good idea, but I would not want to have to add $3,000 or $4,000 to the purchase of every new car to stop bad behavior by a small percentage of drivers. We will never completely eradicate it, but we could reduce it by jailing DUI drivers who maim, injure or kill others for significant periods of time (15-20 years) with a lifetime revocation of DLs. And that costs money also. We have just decided that an innocent person's life is not worth the inmate costs. The alcohol industry and defense counsel lobbies are just more powerful than the dead innocent people's lobby.