Alcohol

Today's Horrifying Headline

|

"N.J. High Court to Review Drunken Drivers' Right to Sue Bars That Served Them"

NEXT: Reason.tv Replay: Arthur C. Brooks on the Battle Between Free Enterprise and Big Government

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Brilliant. If drunken drivers can sue the bars that served them, we will all get cut off at one or two drinks no matter what. Even if you say you’re not driving, they can’t know that for sure.

    1. These people are really starting to blur the line between satire and reality.

      When every Onion headline has come to be, does the planet asplode?

      1. No, it just stops being funny. Oh wait, that’s already happened.

    2. You’re too short-sighted, Epi. Obviously what will happen is a cut-off-before-he-was-drunk patron will be afforded the right to sue on civil rights grounds, thus legally whipsawing every watering hole in the Garden State.

      Then every bar will close rather than be sued into penury, and everyone will wonder what happened.

      1. Is this a secret method to prohibition?

        1. Seems pretty open to me. What is this “secret” thing you talk about?

          1. “Then every bar will close rather than be sued into penury, and everyone will wonder what happened.”

            Its a secret to those who will wonder what happened. Next up to be sued, the producers.

      2. Straight outta Atlas Shrugged.

        1. John Gault, the barkeep?

          1. Why do people keep spelling his name Gault? He wasnt a world class sprinter/football player.

            1. It’s not my falt he spelled it gault.

      3. “Then every bar will close rather than be sued into penury, and everyone will wonder what happened.”

        Maybe someone will try to shut down a bar frequented by Hell’s Angels and an example will be made of both plaintiff and lawyer.

  2. If you know that you’re going to be in a mentally incapacitated state, you need to first find somebody who *volunteers* to protect you from that failing, not just rely on the hope that the folks who are paid to interact with you are also going to pay close enough attention to know when they should save you from yourself.

    That’s why I support the “designated lawyer” system, so lawyers who are too stupid to see that they shouldn’t have a case have their briefcase keys taken away before they can start a trial.

    1. Assumption of the risk. Full stop.

  3. “I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!”

    (Yes, I will perform the proper penence for quoting Ferrell)

    1. (Yes, I will perform the proper penence for quoting Ferrell)

      Stripping to your boxers and a helmet and rolling around on the race track?

  4. Perhaps there’ll be an exemption for Atlantic City’s casino district.

  5. And under the Civil Rights laws, people can sue bars that don’t serve them.

    Perhaps alcoholism is a disability, and alcoholics can sue bars under the ADA.

    1. Maybe so. I’m 6’9″, 280+ and I don’t get the “full tequila experience” from those little bitty shot glasses. I should be reasonably accommodated with larger or cheaper shots.

    2. Speaking of the ADA, aren’t bars just a bit too high for the wheel-chair bound to actually see what the bartender is really putting in their AMF? Can a lawsuit be far behind? Rather than belly, will we be forced to “dick (or vag) up to the bar?”

      1. dick (or vag) up to the bar

        That is hilarious.

        1. Laugh while you can monkey boy.

        2. Bigboote up to the bar?

          1. Big-boo-TAY!

        3. The term “vag” offends me on behalf of women. I’m suing you.

    3. Alcoholism is a recognized disability which is afforded relief by the ADA.

  6. I’m assuming that the victims of drunken drivers can sue the bar that overserved the driver, right? If so, then a bar can get sued by both the drunk driver AND the victim? And nobody sees anything wrong with this?

    1. Relax. It’s just a matter of social scientists determining who’s at fault for the bartender to sue. No one’s errors are ever the result of decisions made through free will.

      1. Relax. It’s just a matter of social scientists determining who’s at fault for the bartender to sue. No one’s errors are ever the result of decisions made through free will.

        Why would the bartender be at fault, instead of the alcohol manufacturer?

        Did not courts find gun manufacturers liable for wrongful death for people murdered with guns?

    2. It depends. I realize this story is about drivers suing the bar, but since this is about 3rd parties:

      Situation #1: visibly drunk, swearing, weaving person who is bragging to the bartender about driving home and not stopping even if he hits someone, and the bar continues to serve him, I don’t have a problem with the bar sharing liability against a 3rd party injured or killed by that driver.

      Situation #2: calm, collected, not visibly drunk person who lies and states that his friend who is with him, and not drinking, will be driving, has a few drinks, goes out and drives and hits someone – there shouldn’t be liability of the bar to that 3rd party.

      Real life will of course fall somewhere in between, but there are at least some egregious circumstances where I’d be fine with a bar being liable to a 3rd party.

      As for liability to the drunk driver, I’ll give a hypo where it seems reasonable:

      Driver comes in, says he’d like to have a couple of drinks, but if and only if the bartender and staff agree as a condition prerequisite to his being a customer, to not serve him more than 2 drinks total. If they are unwilling to commit to that, or are unable to keep track, he will go elsewhere. There are no other customers, the bartender and staff agree, but then continue to serve the customer past that point, he drives and is injured, the bar should be liable.

  7. I’m preparing a suit against the plaintiffs in this case, which will hopefully establish the right to sue anyone whose lawsuit makes you nauseous.

    1. Why go it alone? You can easily drum up a class-action scenario.

  8. Surely glass manufacturers share the blame.

  9. Huzzah!!

      1. Racist!

  10. Not reading anything, aren’t dram shop laws old news?

  11. This is another example of the way moral hazard has become a central feature of society. Personal responsibility for one’s choices and one’s actions is more the exception than the rule. The entire purpose of modern society seems to be to relieve individuals of the personal responsibility and consequences of their actions. It is a fundamental aspect of our political system, our economic system and our lives on a personal level.

    1. This applies even more to ‘our’ civil servants in Washington, D.C.

  12. Good luck, Shirley.

    Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.

    […]

    At the journalists convention, Sherrod was asked what could be done to ensure accurate coverage as conservatives like Breitbart attack the NAACP and other liberal groups.

    Sherrod, 62, responded that members of her generation who were in the civil rights movement “tried too much to shield that hurt and pain from younger people. We have to do a better job of helping those individuals who get these positions, in the media, in educational institutions, in the presidency, we have to make sure they understand the history so they can do a better job.”

    No indication of exactly what she’s going to sue Breitbart for, but maybe we should ask her what needs to be done to ensure accurate coverage of the Tea Party…

    1. Breitbart must be pissing himself in fear ecstasy. I can see the emails going fast and furious on the JournoList replacement:

      “Sherrod: Under the bus like Rev. Wright, or cast into media blackout like Cindy Sheehan? Discuss.”

    2. “Ousted Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod said Thursday she will sue a conservative blogger who posted a video edited in a way that made her appear racist.”

      She should sue him in the UK. Here in America truth is still a defense.

  13. Coming next:
    Murderers who sue the gun shop from which they bought the guns to commit their crime.

    1. Wait, haven’t victims’ families already done that? Or sued gun manufacturers or something?

      1. I was going to add manufacturers too.

        What about the mines that contributed to the steel?

  14. I’m planning to sue Al Gore for inventing the Internet, which causes me so much anguish.

  15. Who wants to bet that liquor store owners are backing this?

    And who wants to bet liquor stores will be the next class of business to be tagged with legal liability for a customer’s drunk driving?

  16. I need to start drinking out more to supplement my retirement plan.

  17. The stop-me-before-I-kill-again crowd strikes again.

  18. Post-reductio America sucks.

  19. All we are saying….is give head a chance.

  20. And my father still can’t seem to understand why I left New Jersey for good, after having lived there the first 35 years of my life. Yes, it’s my embarrassing little secret, but after years of therapy and introspection, I can now publicly admit it… I… I was… (lip quivering) … born … in New Jersey. There, I said it. Whew! It feels good to get that out. Yes, dammit, I’m a New Jersey native!

    But I grew up, wised up and moved to Virginia. Which is far better in so many ways (although with its own peculiar issues – but what state doesn’t have them?).

    1. The state of unconsciousness?

    2. NEW JERSEY!

  21. Does this asshole bringing the suit want bars to start checking people’s BAC prior to giving them another drink?

    1. Just put your mouth around this tube…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.