It's hard to believe that a bartender could serve somebody drinks to this point without being aware of the degree of their intoxication.
Alberta bar-owner faces criminal charges in drinking death
- Thread starter Praxius
- Start date
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!"
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.
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 :twisted:
Well, she was drinking with friends, and was apparently already drunk when she got to the bar.
http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.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.
Her friends should be credible witnesses. As to what happened in the home, that's for investigators, and it's not that hard.
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.
Did you know that your ass could end up in the frying pan too? Just saying...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
They shouldn't, but that's not the case here. In this case, people are responsible for NOT acting. Big difference.
And see I have an issue with that as well "Not Acting."
There is such thing as legal responsibility and moral responsibility, and although this law the bars have to abide by are making it a "Legal Responsibility" for them to make sure nobody drinks too much, it should be no more then a moral responsibility.
A moral responsibility to me is if you see someone getting the crap beat out of them.... you may have a moral responsibility to step in and try to save them, but that is subjective and you have no legal responsibility to step in and can not be charged if the person died.
You may have a moral responsibility to stop someone from jumping off a building and killing themselves, but you have no legal responsibility over what they decide to do and if they die, you can not be charged.
And yet, here we have bars and bartenders being legally responsible to baby sit and pamper grown adults who are legally of age to drink..... if they are legally of age to drink, then that should mean they are legally responsible for their actions when they drink...... if not, then they shouldn't be drinking in the first place.
Maybe it should be only a moral responsibility; it's a government controlled substance, and a government controlled licensing agreement. That pretty much makes any moral responsibility a legal responsibility. In any event, that doesn't excuse the bartender or bar owner for what they did, in this case what they failed to do.