Alberta bar-owner faces criminal charges in drinking death


Praxius
#1
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/st...r-charges.html

Quote:

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 That charge was withdrawn in May on legal advice from the Crown.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.
Last edited by Praxius; Sep 12th, 2008 at 02:30 PM..
 
Colpy
#2
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/st...r-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
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

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
#4
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
#5
Welcome to the nanny state.
 
karrie
#6
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
#7
Look out McDonalds here comes the food police.
 
karrie
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by Twig View Post

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
#9
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
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

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
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Twig View Post

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
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by Twig View Post

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
#13
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
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Twig View Post

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
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Twig View Post

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
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

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.

Quote:

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
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

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
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by karrie View Post

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
#19
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
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

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.

Quote:

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.
 
TenPenny
#21
It's hard to believe that a bartender could serve somebody drinks to this point without being aware of the degree of their intoxication.
 
Risus
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

It's hard to believe that a bartender could serve somebody drinks to this point without being aware of the degree of their intoxication.

It happens...
 
Praxius
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Do you know that there weren't?

There is not available information saying there was or wasn't.... since there is no evidence either way, the situation is non-existent, and unless there are witnesses provided in the future, my position still stands.

And if there were witnesses, why didn't the witnesses step in and say "Whoa there rummy.... don't you think you had enough..... I'm over here.... focus, focus man!"

Quote:

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.

Well unless they have witnesses..... credible witnesses who were not drunk as well, and they have proof that the person had no alcohol in their home and drank none of it if there was, then it will be a hard to prove case.

Quote:

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.

Well to me, based on this situation, and depending on further details of it, there is only so much one human can do when it comes to controlling the actions of another.

I understand your other examples you were bringing into the equation as possibilities, which is why I was also throwing out my own examples into the equation.... you just sorta sounded like they were statements.

But in keeping with this trend, this person could have also come from another bar where she was tossed out for having too much, none of the bartenders seen here there that night, she asked for a drink, they gave it to her......

To me in general about the law of responsibility being placed on the bars, there's just way too many factors and situations that could have occured in the span of the night for one or two people to think about in just a few seconds when it comes to someone asking for a drink, you getting it for them, and keeping the line up as short as possible.

If nobody can get their drinks easily and quickly, it's gonna pile up, people are going to get pissy, and at the very best, people will just head to another bar, while you pamper everybody who comes up to the bar for a drink.

Perhaps one could add a breathalizer for people to blow into to prove they're not smashed and can have another drink, but nobody would want to goto that bar anymore once they realize they'd be cut off as soon as they got a buzz..... and bars would have to continually replace the mouth pieces to reduce any transfers of bacteria or mouth rot from other people...... quite simply, people would stop going to bars and just have house parties like I do.

Then again, maybe that's the plan in the long run
 
Tonington
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

There is not available information saying there was or wasn't.... since there is no evidence either way, the situation is non-existent, and unless there are witnesses provided in the future, my position still stands.

Well, she was drinking with friends, and was apparently already drunk when she got to the bar.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_p...html?id=787986

Quote:

And if there were witnesses, why didn't the witnesses step in and say "Whoa there rummy.... don't you think you had enough..... I'm over here.... focus, focus man!"

I'm not a mind reader. Maybe they did?

But it isn't her friends responsibility (legally) to stop the bar from serving her. That falls onto the person(s) licensed to dispense a controlled substance.

Quote:

Well unless they have witnesses..... credible witnesses who were not drunk as well, and they have proof that the person had no alcohol in their home and drank none of it if there was, then it will be a hard to prove case.

Her friends should be credible witnesses. As to what happened in the home, that's for investigators, and it's not that hard.

Quote:

Well to me, based on this situation, and depending on further details of it, there is only so much one human can do when it comes to controlling the actions of another.

It's very easy for a bartender to say "You've had too much". He can't stop her from drinking somewhere else, but then that isn't his responsibility. Like it or not, that's what the Liquor acts of all provinces basically say. So, if he didn't think he could say "No" he should have found another job.

Quote:

But in keeping with this trend, this person could have also come from another bar where she was tossed out for having too much, none of the bartenders seen here there that night, she asked for a drink, they gave it to her......

If she was tossed for drinking too much in another bar, then that bartender did what the law says he or she must. That doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the responsibilities of Skip's Bar and the employees of that bar.

Quote:

Perhaps one could add a breathalizer for people to blow into to prove they're not smashed and can have another drink, but nobody would want to goto that bar anymore once they realize they'd be cut off as soon as they got a buzz..... and bars would have to continually replace the mouth pieces to reduce any transfers of bacteria or mouth rot from other people...... quite simply, people would stop going to bars and just have house parties like I do.

Did you know that your ass could end up in the frying pan too? Just saying...
 
Praxius
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

Well, she was drinking with friends, and was apparently already drunk when she got to the bar.

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_p...html?id=787986

I'm not a mind reader. Maybe they did?

But it isn't her friends responsibility (legally) to stop the bar from serving her. That falls onto the person(s) licensed to dispense a controlled substance.

See, one would think the laws would put the onus onto the friends who were more around her then the bartender... they would have seen her getting drunk off her rocker, they would have probably seen in the past her own limits and when she should stop..... they are not medical professionals, and neither are the bartenders.... but they would have a lot more background on her ability to drink then the bartenders, and if they were continually drinking and getting her to drink, or just simply allowing her to drink on her own in front of them, then one would think they had a level of responsibility in her death.

The laws don't state this, but I say nutz to the laws, they're not right how they are currently designed and need to be changed. If the bartender can be found accountable for her death, then her friends should be as well.

But in honesty, I don't feel either should be held accountable for her death and the only one who should be is herself.

If some fool over doses on Cocaine and dies in their home, do the police run around trying to track down the dealer to sold it to them? They don't have a license to distribute or sell the cocaine, yet they did, and the person used too much, didn't know their limit, and are now dead.....

But when it hits the news, it's always their own fault for being a druggy...... but with Alcohol.... it's a whole other ball game it would seem..... even though it too is a narcotic.

Quote:

Her friends should be credible witnesses. As to what happened in the home, that's for investigators, and it's not that hard.

As you said, if she was drinking with her friends, then her friends were drunk as well, and therefore their witness testimony would be thrown out due to lack of credibility in details.

Quote:

It's very easy for a bartender to say "You've had too much". He can't stop her from drinking somewhere else, but then that isn't his responsibility. Like it or not, that's what the Liquor acts of all provinces basically say. So, if he didn't think he could say "No" he should have found another job.

If she was tossed for drinking too much in another bar, then that bartender did what the law says he or she must. That doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on the responsibilities of Skip's Bar and the employees of that bar.

So one bar boots out someone who is obviously drunk, they've seen them drinking at their bar for hours and now notices that they're not moving or acting the way they were when they first came in..... so they boot them out and it's no longer their concern.... meanwhile they walk into another bar and continue their drinking (Which occurs a lot all accross Canada and elsewhere)

So then she has, let say, one drink there, then heads home and drops dead. While the majority of the alcohol she drank was at the other bar, that last drink was at this bar, where the previous bar passed the buck of responsibility to this bar for their and her own actions.

The law is still flawed, as one bar may cover their ass, all they're doing is passing this lose cannon to the next bar she strolls into. Doesn't make sense to me at all.

Quote:

Did you know that your ass could end up in the frying pan too? Just saying...

How exactly? I am not supplying the alcohol, they bring their own.... I have no license to distribute it, and they all bought it at the liqour store..... are you now telling me that in almost the exact same situation with the bars supplying the alcohol, the liqour stores are not responsible..... but I am?
 
Tonington
#26
In 2005, there was a case that made it all the way to the Supreme court over this very issue. In the end the SC over ruled the trial judges decision, because the home owners didn't know the person was drunk, didn't see it happen, so couldn't know the guy was loaded (I think it was 12 beer in 2.5 hours). But the court held that there are still instances where a "duty of care" is owed to the guests. Like say you invite some friends over to drink and you know there's no designated driver, and they drive away after the parties over. That's an inherent risk that you invited, and you controlled, and you could be liable.

The standards are even tighter, when it's a holliday party that is thrown for employees.
 
Praxius
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

In 2005, there was a case that made it all the way to the Supreme court over this very issue. In the end the SC over ruled the trial judges decision, because the home owners didn't know the person was drunk, didn't see it happen, so couldn't know the guy was loaded (I think it was 12 beer in 2.5 hours). But the court held that there are still instances where a "duty of care" is owed to the guests. Like say you invite some friends over to drink and you know there's no designated driver, and they drive away after the parties over. That's an inherent risk that you invited, and you controlled, and you could be liable.

The standards are even tighter, when it's a holliday party that is thrown for employees.

Perhaps there is, but I don't see why someone should be held accountable for another adult's actions.

And I have yet to have anybody leave my home drunk and get into a car.... I don't hang out with twits like that..... if they're around, they're not for long, because I don't deal with people like that.
 
Twig
#28
They may have called my generation the "Me" generation but this one should be called the "not me, not me, not me generation. I know it's not a popular idea but I like the idea of personal responsibility.
 
karrie
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Twig View Post

They may have called my generation the "Me" generation but this one should be called the "not me, not me, not me generation. I know it's not a popular idea but I like the idea of personal responsibility.

Has the Alberta Gaming and Liquor Act changed significantly since 'your' generation?
 
karrie
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

Perhaps there is, but I don't see why someone should be held accountable for another adult's actions.

He's not being held accountable for her actions. He's being charged with violating the Act, and thus running his business in a negligent manner. What they're being charged with is their OWN actions. Why try to slough that off and put the onus on drunks to run your business? When they KNOW what the Act is, they agree to it when they open, I feel no pity for them for having to face the possible consequences that come with not paying attention to it.
 

Similar Threads