Alberta bar-owner faces criminal charges in drinking death

[Praxius]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/09/12/bar-charges.html

The owner and an employee of a bar in Calmar, Alta., 50 kilometres southwest of Edmonton, now face criminal charges in the death of a woman who died from alcohol poisoning in October 2007.

Emergency crews found Tammy Kobylka, 22, dead in a home at the Calmar Trailer Park.
The provincial medical examiner found that Kobylka died of "acute ethanol toxicity."

The owner of Skip's Bar, Brian Cameron Bromley, 61, and his company, SBH Enterprises Inc., are charged with criminal negligence in causing Kobylka's death.

The bartender, Derek Allen Tithecott, 33, is charged with manslaughter as well as criminal negligence causing death.

Skip's Bar had previously been charged with violating the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Act by allowing an apparently already-drunk person to consume liquor in a licensed premises. That charge was withdrawn in May on legal advice from the Crown.

Bromley and Tithecott are scheduled to appear in Leduc provincial court on Sept. 18.

That's going to be kinda hard to prove their direct responsibility on this.... as she could have drank at the bar for a while, seemed perfectly fine or cut off and sent home, went home and drank some more while under no supervision and then died.

I don't see how bars should be held responsible for other adult's actions and choices, even if those actions cause their own deaths.

Putting the blame and responsibility on bars and bar owners means that adults, to a degree, have no responsibility for their own actions, and if that was true..... well.....

Anybody remember in the 90's that case of the guy who raped a woman, was charged and then he claimed he was not guilty because he was under the influence of alcohol, therefore he was not responsible? "I was Too Drunk to know what I was doing" I believe were his exact words. The first judge agreed and set him free, which caused a big stink accross the nation and the case was redone by another judge and found him guilty.

^ In my opinion, no matter what you ingest that may alter your state of mind, you are the sole person responsible for those decisions and actions and should be held accountable, not someone else.

I understand a bar and their employees should be responsible for breaking up fights and other disorderly conduct for the protection of the other patrons, but they should not be responsible for anybody's actions other then their own.

If she is dead, then it's her own damn fault for not know her limit. You can not simply pick and chose a line where someone is responsible and then isn't.

And besides, many really drunk people are really good at hiding their intoxication..... for myself, besides slurred speech, I still can walk and move as though nobody would know I was hammered.... until I opened my mouth, or perhaps if they looked at my eyes.... but on those nights when I came close to alcohol poisioning in my younger years, if I did die, I would hold nobody else responsible other then myself.

I don't expect bar tenders to baby sit me the entire night.

 

[Colpy]

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2008/09/12/bar-charges.html



That's going to be kinda hard to prove their direct responsibility on this.... as she could have drank at the bar for a while, seemed perfectly fine or cut off and sent home, went home and drank some more while under no supervision and then died.

I don't see how bars should be held responsible for other adult's actions and choices, even if those actions cause their own deaths.

Putting the blame and responsibility on bars and bar owners means that adults, to a degree, have no responsibility for their own actions, and if that was true..... well.....

Anybody remember in the 90's that case of the guy who raped a woman, was charged and then he claimed he was not guilty because he was under the influence of alcohol, therefore he was not responsible? "I was Too Drunk to know what I was doing" I believe were his exact words. The first judge agreed and set him free, which caused a big stink accross the nation and the case was redone by another judge and found him guilty.

^ In my opinion, no matter what you ingest that may alter your state of mind, you are the sole person responsible for those decisions and actions and should be held accountable, not someone else.

I understand a bar and their employees should be responsible for breaking up fights and other disorderly conduct for the protection of the other patrons, but they should not be responsible for anybody's actions other then their own.

If she is dead, then it's her own damn fault for not know her limit. You can not simply pick and chose a line where someone is responsible and then isn't.

And besides, many really drunk people are really good at hiding their intoxication..... for myself, besides slurred speech, I still can walk and move as though nobody would know I was hammered.... until I opened my mouth, or perhaps if they looked at my eyes.... but on those nights when I came close to alcohol poisioning in my younger years, if I did die, I would hold nobody else responsible other then myself.

I don't expect bar tenders to baby sit me the entire night.

Exactly.

 

[Tonington]

That's going to be kinda hard to prove their direct responsibility on this.... as she could have drank at the bar for a while, seemed perfectly fine or cut off and sent home, went home and drank some more while under no supervision and then died.

Not really. Witnesses, and a house without any empty liquor bottles.

As to the rest of it, it's in the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Act. The owner was busted once before, it's not like he wasn't aware.

 

[Twig]

It's more than past time that "adults" take responsibility for their actions. How do we expect our kids to learn self control and responsibility when we as adults don't. Our government needs a swift kick between the pockets. If you don't know when to quite drinking then it's your problem.

A few years back a guy jumped in the Detroit river drunk and broke his neck. He sued is friends for not stopping him and the city for not putting up signs and a fence to protect him. If I remember right there was a sign but he just didn't see it.

 

[Scott Free]

Welcome to the nanny state.

 

[karrie]

It's in the Gaming and Liquor Act that these bars bear some of the responsibility for helping to ensure that binge drinking isn't occurring on their premises. It's part of the agreement they make with the communities allowing them to open. It's part of the reality of alcohol consumption that some people will go overboard, that they will want to drink until they physically can't anymore, and the Act is in place to try to stop that from happening in a business establishment. These guys violated that responsibility.

Do they deserve criminal negligence charges? Hard to say without having been there... that's what witnesses are for.

 

[Twig]

Look out McDonalds here comes the food police.

 

[karrie]

Look out McDonalds here comes the food police.

If you want to draw a comparison, yes, there are food police that check in on McDonalds to ensure they are operating safely and within community standards. By-laws and health standards exist everywhere.

 

[Scott Free]

Will they hold my hand when I pee too?

At some point we're going to have to face facts that not everyone is worth saving. There is a fundamental principle in nature where the losers are killed off and for good reason I might add. Can you imagine what people will be like in 100 years as a species if this sh!t keeps up?

 

[Twig]

If you want to draw a comparison, yes, there are food police that check in on McDonald's to ensure they are operating safely and within community standards. By-laws and health standards exist everywhere.

Of course they need to ensure they are operating with not only community standards but health and safety standards.
What I was driving at was the fact that what is next if someone very overweight according to Canada health and Standards comes into McDonald's will McDonald's be held responsible if that person is eating more than the government deems necessary. After all if people cannot control their drinking need a watch dog they maybe people that cannot control their eating will need one and where does it stop.

 

[ShintoMale]

Of course they need to ensure they are operating with not only community standards but health and safety standards.
What I was driving at was the fact that what is next if someone very overweight according to Canada health and Standards comes into McDonald's will McDonald's be held responsible if that person is eating more than the government deems necessary. After all if people cannot control their drinking need a watch dog they maybe people that cannot control their eating will need one and where does it stop.

must be sad to live a life of paranoa

 

[karrie]

Of course they need to ensure they are operating with not only community standards but health and safety standards.
What I was driving at was the fact that what is next if someone very overweight according to Canada health and Standards comes into McDonald's will McDonald's be held responsible if that person is eating more than the government deems necessary. After all if people cannot control their drinking need a watch dog they maybe people that cannot control their eating will need one and where does it stop.

Your first comment I highlighted hits the nail on the head, while your last comment I highlighted misses the point and makes it about the individual.... it's not. This isn't a matter of handholding or controlling individual behavior. They're not being charged with her death. They're being charged with running a business in a criminally negligent manner in direct violation of the Act which dictates how they are to operate within the community they are in. The community has expectations that the bar won't be spilling dead bodies into the street or into the community at the end of the night. It's not like Alberta makes light of these expectations, they're pretty clear on it, and enforce it quite often.

 

[Twig]

I never said the law as it stands should not be enforced that was not my point. My sole point is about personal responsibility. The bar law is exactly the same where I live. A bar should be responsible for the health and safety of the establishment and patrons while they are on the premises beyond that you are making them responsible for the individual. I am not defending the bar in this case they agreed to the terms of the licenses. I am against any law where one person is made responsible for the weaknesses of another person.


ShintoMale.......no I am not paranoid I am a responsible adult aware of my government and what goes on around me. If you want to walk around blindly and just accept what the government dishes out without question that is you choice.

 

[karrie]

I am against any law where one person is made responsible for the weaknesses of another person.

See, the issue is that, like gambling, these are places that are profiting from the weaknesses of others, thus we've decided that they can be a bit responsible for the safety side of it too. I personally have no issue with that.

 

[ShintoMale]

I never said the law as it stands should not be enforced that was not my point. My sole point is about personal responsibility. The bar law is exactly the same where I live. A bar should be responsible for the health and safety of the establishment and patrons while they are on the premises beyond that you are making them responsible for the individual. I am not defending the bar in this case they agreed to the terms of the licenses. I am against any law where one person is made responsible for the weaknesses of another person.


ShintoMale.......no I am not paranoid I am a responsible adult aware of my government and what goes on around me. If you want to walk around blindly and just accept what the government dishes out without question that is you choice.

nobody is advocating blindly accepting what the government says. alcohol is dangerous drug and it should be regulated

 

[Praxius]

Not really. Witnesses, and a house without any empty liquor bottles.

What Witnesses?

Do you know there wasn't any opened bottles of alcohol in her home? I didn't see any of those details in the above report.

As to the rest of it, it's in the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Act. The owner was busted once before, it's not like he wasn't aware.

The bar was charged once, but the charges were dropped.... that's not a conviction or proof that the bar was in error.

 

[Praxius]

Your first comment I highlighted hits the nail on the head, while your last comment I highlighted misses the point and makes it about the individual.... it's not. This isn't a matter of handholding or controlling individual behavior. They're not being charged with her death. They're being charged with running a business in a criminally negligent manner in direct violation of the Act which dictates how they are to operate within the community they are in. The community has expectations that the bar won't be spilling dead bodies into the street or into the community at the end of the night. It's not like Alberta makes light of these expectations, they're pretty clear on it, and enforce it quite often.

The difference between McDonalds's serving food and a bar serving drinks, is that McDonald's makes their own food and serves their own food.... certain expectations of the food quality must be met.

In a bar, all the drinks are made by other companies who've already done their inspections and quality checks..... they are not opened or have the ability to be tainted in most cases, and the bar is serving already approved and licensed products.... regardless of the act's existence, the act istelf is what I question.

I understand that there are food inspectors and such checking the quality of food at restaurants from bacteria and tainted foods, in order to prevent "Spilling bodies on the street" as you said.... however the products supplied in a bar are no more dangerous then food supplied in a restaurant, as there are people addicted to both, and there are people who don't know when to stop both.

Bartenders do not know everybody's limits, they have no idea what one person drank before they arrived, they might not know how many drinks they got from another bar tender, and they certainly can not read minds.

What if they went to a liqour store, bought a shopping cart loaded with alcohol, went home and drank it all on their own and died with the receipt still in their hand? Would the liqour store be responsible for their death? Should they have stopped them from buying all that alcohol?

For all they knew at the store, the guy could have had a big party coming up, or just wanted to stock up on some drinks..... how were they to know they were going to drink it all in one night and kill themselves?

If it's alright to charge the bars for idividual's stupidity and lack of knowlege of their own limits, then why not go a step futher and charge the breweries which supplied the beverages to the bar that they died from?

As I personally see it, bars are only supplying a service, what the consumer does with that service is their own responsibility.

When you have two or three bartenders trying to serve drinks to hundreds of people on a busy Friday or Saturday night, how does one expect them to have enough time to check out every single person, how drunk they are, if they're the same people they served before or not?

What if a friend keeps going up to get their drinks? The friend might seem sober, they ask for a rum and coke and three shots of vodka.... you imagine they're still pretty sober and that they are not all for that one person, so they get the drinks and head back to their friends who are slumping all around the seats with their eyes half closed behind the crowd of dancing people?

It's an impossible thing to be asking of a bar to do.... they can do it to a degree, and esspecially on slow nights it's possible..... but when it's a busy night, with hundreds of people coming at you non-stop until the night is over, it's certainly not a 100% flawless solution.

The only flawless solution is education and putting the responsibilities back on the individual who's drinking the drinks. If they die, then their families have nobody else to blame except their drunkard family member who just killed themselves.

 

[Praxius]

See, the issue is that, like gambling, these are places that are profiting from the weaknesses of others, thus we've decided that they can be a bit responsible for the safety side of it too. I personally have no issue with that.

People say the same thing about porn stars, yet many still perform in porns because they simply enjoy it.

Many people goto the bars, not because of a weakness, but because they like the bars.... be that because the drinks, the music, the socializing, or the possible sex later on that night with a stranger..... but trying to blanket bars with that attitude, claiming they're out to vampire people's weaknesses to alcohol, I can not agree with, as that is certainly not the case in many bars.

Back when I used to goto bars, I went, not for the drinks, but because my friends wanted to go for whatever reasons..... I hated them, but for my own reasons. We all usually drank before we hit the bar in order to save on money.... something the bars can not controll or detect.

We didn't go because it was the only place we could get alcohol.... we went because that's where everybody was...... and since I hate just about everybody, I hated bars.

 

[Praxius]

An additional thing I would like to add, is that I find it interesting that people who start fights in a bar, the bar isn't held responsible for those actions (Unless they allow it to continue of course) but a bar is responsible for the actions of people drinking too much then what their body can handle.

Why isn't a bar responsible for a fight breaking out, but responsible for how much someone drinks?

Someone getting pissy and wanting to fight is the same result of drinking as someone drinking so much that they die.

 

[Tonington]

What Witnesses?

Do you know there wasn't any opened bottles of alcohol in her home? I didn't see any of those details in the above report.

Do you know that there weren't? You said it would be hard to prove, and I simply gave the conditions where it would be rather easy to prove. I wasn't asserting that's what happened. It was more of a comment, because none of us have the police report, it's rather foolish to say it's going to be hard to prove.

The bar was charged once, but the charges were dropped.... that's not a conviction or proof that the bar was in error.

It's proof that the bar owner is aware of what his responsibilities are. He should be anyways. I mentioned the Act, because he would be required to be aware of the rules and conditions for his license. Kind of like we have to click a box when we install new programs that says we understand the license agreement. Cover your ass, or don't. If you don't you might end up in a court room.