Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Dram shop laws are bad enough but what do we call this kind of law? What were the bartenders supposed to do here as they managed a croweded bar and had to pay attention to the people WHO WERE ACTUALLY CONSUMING ALCOHOL? This is an example of an out of control court system. I am ashamed to call NJ home.
Charles, if you read the article you’ll note that the driver was not served alcohol. He got drunk before he got there, but was not served a single drop of booze while at the bar being held liable. They served his passengers. That’s what makes this ruling so idiotic.
I’m on for the suit against the alcohol manufacturers. We can add in lost income from having to call in sick from hangovers, loss of consortium and increasing my chances of getting liver problems.
You should drop the suit against the fast food chains as that battle was already lost. The judge decided people were not misled into eating themselves into obesity.
Basically New Jerksy doesn’t have enough cops to breathalize everyone leaving a bar so the state is making the bar operators the de facto ‘driving gate-keepers’ – also, this imbecilic ruling makes more liability insurance available to pay for the damages done by inebriate operators – on a brighter note, maybe this will cause every bar in New Jersey to close thereby sparing the rest of us from the dangers of some of those who drink and drive
I believe all dram shop laws should be revoked. They remove responsibility from where it belongs and place it where the money is.
This case in particular is outrageous. They didn’t serve the driver any alcohol yet are liable for his actions? What, proprietors now have a duty to protect everyone who comes into their establishment? We have to worry about every little thing they may do after they leave our place of business all because they happened to be there? We need to insert some personal responsibility back into our laws before we completely shut down businesses.
I whole-heartedly agree. I’ve handled dram shop cases which involve a number of different states. This is probably the most unfavorable ruling I’ve seen.
This is absolutely ridiculous. At what point do people become responsible for their OWN actions in this country?? The server that is making minimum wage is now responsible for some idiot that can’t make good decisions for himself?
Agreed. Wouldn’t this make the convenience mart where they stopped to buy cigarettes and the gas station where they bought gas liable too? If you see a person drunk in public do you have to make a citizens arrest? What if you don’t and they hurt themselves or someone else? This is crazy!
I guess that the only safe bet for the bars now is to require each patron to do a breathalyzer before coming in and if someone is drunk then they are not allowed to enter.
Do you people ever think anything through before you react. You love to hammer people for their mistakes except when it might affect your well being. This bar continued to serve alcohol to a group of drunk individuals, just because they missed one does not absolve them of responsibility.
If they can do this to a Bar then they can also do it to gambling houses, i.e. Casinos. You can bet they are not going to go after the Casinos – who love to get their customers drunk – because the government makes too much money off of gambling houses. Therefore, most likely this decision will be overturned on appeal.
I plan to file the following lawsuits in Federal Court next week and wonder if anyone else wants to jump aboard the cash train.
I’m suing EVERY liquor manufacturer who sells products in the United States for the immense pain they’ve caused to me after sitting up drinking all night only to wake the next morning with horrible hang-overs. I’ve checked and not one mention is made on any product regarding hang-overs.
I’m also planning a second lawsuit on the same defendants for the emotional distress caused when I realized I’ve sang Kareokee, attempted to dance, and once went home with an ugly woman.
I’ll also be suing all major fast food chains for the weight problem I used to suffer. They’ll be required to make double cheeseburgers less yummy (and pay me back for the pants I’ve torn as well as emotional distress caused by years of being called Fatty McButterpants.
I THINK WE SHOULD LAUNCH A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST THESE IRRESPONSIBLE MONEY CHASING JUDGES WHO MAKE RULINGS CAUSING LOST REVENUES TO SMALL BUSINESSES BUT IGNORE THE LARGE CASINOS. INCLUDE ALL THE BIG GUYS IN THE SUIT CUZ THEY GET SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THEY WOULD NOT SUCCEED.
The ruling just said they were allowed to sue. Right? It didn’t say they won any money yet.
Liability insurance covers if you’re negligent. I don’t see the bar a negligent here… so, can they simply deny coverage due to no negligent act by the insured?
WHATS SHOULD BAR OWNERS DO? THROW THEM OUT OF THE BAR AND TELL EM DRIVE ELSEWHERE THEREBY PUTTING THEM BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR DRUNK??? THIS MUST BE A LIBERAL PANEL OF JUDGES.
coverage and liability are two separate things. You can’t deny coverage because there is no liability. If there is coverage, and it would have to be a LLCP since the CGL has an exclusion for alcohol related claims if you are in the business of selling alcohol, then you need to defend. Especially if you think there is no liability. Thats the whole essence of insurance. If we denied claims everytime we thought there was no liability, we’d be in big time bad faith. We defend whether we think there is liability or not.
This is one of the most retarded decisions. Now the bartenders, who in this case showed to prudent by not serving Hamby is still liable. The bartender was wrong, even being right. The judges are definately giving mixed signals, they now have to determine what is intoxicated and are liable if they don’t serve since they used proper judgement. It’s always someone else’s fault, I just can’t be held responsible for my actions.
Problem is that included in most liability policies is a provision to provide legal defense against suit. Even if the suit is frivilous or merit-less, a defense still needs to be prepared and presented. If by some miracle the case is settled as having no merit to show liability toward the bar or server it will still tie up the legal system (as well as racking up legal costs) which gets passed onto all policy holders.
Sadly, there’s no such thing as filing a suit to see what happens. The plaintiff may not worry since most ambulance chasing PI attorneys don’t charge unless you’re awarded a settlement. The point of most of these suits is to never get to court. File a rediculous lawsuit hoping that the defendant will realize that paying “go away money” voulentarily is more cost effective than actually trying to defend and risk being ordered to pay more.
Watch “A Civil Action” to see a great example of PI law proceedings.
If an individual needs to be of legal age to drink and that supposes the individual, by being of age, is responsible – then why would the establishment (especially one who did not serve him any alcoholic beverage) be responsible. Until we put the responsibility for actions back on the individual we are going to continue to see our society decline.
Aside from the asinine ruling by these judges; here’s what I’m wondering…
So the family of this idiot can now sue the bar, OK.
Just how much could a drunk, retarded, a-hole that whips his talley-whacker out in the middle of a public place to show off his “Prince Albert” really be worth?
I mean really; if we are going to put a number on stuff like this, let’s get a baseline.
I’d assume a stand-up member of society that actually contributes something meaningful to those around them would be worth quite a bit.
A priest, a doctor, school teachers, a loving mother, the occasional philanthropist.
All would be a tragic loss and worth their weight in gold.
But a substance abusing, weiner piercing, drunk retard that clearly has no regard for decency or the quiet enjoyment of anyone around him…
Screw ’em.
Throw his parents 200 bucks for the ambulance costs and a condom so they can’t produce another worthless offspring.
I agree, this just goes too far. I guess if they turned them away at the door for being too drunk to enter, the family could sue because the doorman “forced them” to drive to another bar? Plus, if you look at a whole picture, it gets worse. The now-deceased passenger couldn’t drive because his own license was suspended for drinking & driving, so obviously he had no judgement when it came to this matter. They drank enough beer & rum in the car prior to entering the bar that, even after several hours of not drinking, the driver’s bac was twice the legal limit, which means they really had to be falling down drunk when they came in. Ad the driver apparently has no problem to admitting to drinking beer and rum in the car–isn’t that much worse than passengers drinking in a bar? What exactly was the bar supposed to do w/these guys–get them a hotel room? If a bar is supposed to protect passengers from getting into a car with drunk drivers, what’s next–do they need to protect drunken customers from having sex with strangers, and pay child support if they don’t & someone ends up pregnant?
Here’s an idea…If your license is suspended for DUI, not only may you not drive, but you are also forbidden to be in an establisnment that serves alcohol for the suspension period. If you are caught, it is a mandatory sentence of 6 months. You can use GPS ankle braclets to monitor and enforce. That’s one way to keep the drunken idiots home.
To help a drug addict, get rid of the pushers.
Bars and bartenders push alcohol, and nothing is done about it. Everywhere in New Jersey, patrons come in and drink for hours and hours, opening to closing, and they keep getting served, even when they’re drivers. We need more stringent laws and more examples of bartenders being held personally liable and losing their homes for ignoring how much they have served a patron and just continuing to ring up the cash register and the tips. After working in the court system for many years, it is painfully evident that alcohol destroys lives. Pushers of alcohol who do not obey the law should be held accountable and punished!
When I tended bar during college, I refused to serve intoxicated patrons. Sometimes the owner would serve them personally then, depending on who they were. He took that liability on himself.
I agree with any lawsuits making bar owners and bartenders take heed of the law and help to save lives — both of alcoholics and the innocent public!
I DON’T KNOW A PERFECT ANSWER. MY ANSWER IS THAT I WOULD NOT OWN A BAR. HOWEVER, IF A PERSON IS OF LEGAL AGE UNDER THE LAW, HE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS, AND IF HE DECIDES TO DRINK, AND OVERIMBIBES, THAT SHOULD BE ENTIRELY HIS OWN FAULT!!!
You are absolutely right. Too bad we don’t have any responsibility available for sale any more.
This all arises out of the mantra “It takes a village to raise a child.” No, it doesn’t; it takes parents that will teach the child to be responsible by holding them accountable for their actions.
It takes a family (traditional or non-traditional) to raise the child. The village has enough of its own problems to worry about.
Once a person learns to be accoutable, they don’t look to point fingers.
Unfortunately, we are in a society of troubled personalities and addictions. Alcohol is not only a drug, but a legal one. In addition, may children are born addicted, through Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Look around you at the people who drink on a regular basis. Sadly astounding. Once a person drinking alcohol reaches a certain point, they are many times unable to rationally determine if they have had “too much.” So if you’re going to serve a legal drug with laws attached, be ready to obey them or suffer the consequences. My “anger” is in the disgusting fact that bartenders/owners/managers often are well aware the person is impaired but choose to put money first, disregarding the law and the public safety.
IT’S VERY SIMPLE REALLY—-IF I HAVE AN ADDICTION, I SHOULD NOT GO ANYWHERE NEAR MY TEMPTATION! SO IF MY PROBLEM IS ALCOHOL, I JUST DO NOT GO INTO A BAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. I THEN DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHEN I HAVE HAD ENOUGH, AND NEITHER DOES THE POOR BARTENDER!
Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Dram shop laws are bad enough but what do we call this kind of law? What were the bartenders supposed to do here as they managed a croweded bar and had to pay attention to the people WHO WERE ACTUALLY CONSUMING ALCOHOL? This is an example of an out of control court system. I am ashamed to call NJ home.
Charles, if you read the article you’ll note that the driver was not served alcohol. He got drunk before he got there, but was not served a single drop of booze while at the bar being held liable. They served his passengers. That’s what makes this ruling so idiotic.
I’m on for the suit against the alcohol manufacturers. We can add in lost income from having to call in sick from hangovers, loss of consortium and increasing my chances of getting liver problems.
You should drop the suit against the fast food chains as that battle was already lost. The judge decided people were not misled into eating themselves into obesity.
Basically New Jerksy doesn’t have enough cops to breathalize everyone leaving a bar so the state is making the bar operators the de facto ‘driving gate-keepers’ – also, this imbecilic ruling makes more liability insurance available to pay for the damages done by inebriate operators – on a brighter note, maybe this will cause every bar in New Jersey to close thereby sparing the rest of us from the dangers of some of those who drink and drive
I believe all dram shop laws should be revoked. They remove responsibility from where it belongs and place it where the money is.
This case in particular is outrageous. They didn’t serve the driver any alcohol yet are liable for his actions? What, proprietors now have a duty to protect everyone who comes into their establishment? We have to worry about every little thing they may do after they leave our place of business all because they happened to be there? We need to insert some personal responsibility back into our laws before we completely shut down businesses.
I whole-heartedly agree. I’ve handled dram shop cases which involve a number of different states. This is probably the most unfavorable ruling I’ve seen.
This is absolutely ridiculous. At what point do people become responsible for their OWN actions in this country?? The server that is making minimum wage is now responsible for some idiot that can’t make good decisions for himself?
Agreed. Wouldn’t this make the convenience mart where they stopped to buy cigarettes and the gas station where they bought gas liable too? If you see a person drunk in public do you have to make a citizens arrest? What if you don’t and they hurt themselves or someone else? This is crazy!
This is even worse than joint and several liability, as in this situation, there wasn’t a breach of duty to the affected persons.
Must be a plaintiff run bar by the Jersey Boys…
The only thing more ludicrous than the ruling is that IJ felt it necessary to include the part about pierced genitals.
This decision is absolutely disgusting. I hope they appeal and win in this matter. I can’t believe the judges are actually this stupid.
I guess that the only safe bet for the bars now is to require each patron to do a breathalyzer before coming in and if someone is drunk then they are not allowed to enter.
Do you people ever think anything through before you react. You love to hammer people for their mistakes except when it might affect your well being. This bar continued to serve alcohol to a group of drunk individuals, just because they missed one does not absolve them of responsibility.
If they can do this to a Bar then they can also do it to gambling houses, i.e. Casinos. You can bet they are not going to go after the Casinos – who love to get their customers drunk – because the government makes too much money off of gambling houses. Therefore, most likely this decision will be overturned on appeal.
I plan to file the following lawsuits in Federal Court next week and wonder if anyone else wants to jump aboard the cash train.
I’m suing EVERY liquor manufacturer who sells products in the United States for the immense pain they’ve caused to me after sitting up drinking all night only to wake the next morning with horrible hang-overs. I’ve checked and not one mention is made on any product regarding hang-overs.
I’m also planning a second lawsuit on the same defendants for the emotional distress caused when I realized I’ve sang Kareokee, attempted to dance, and once went home with an ugly woman.
I’ll also be suing all major fast food chains for the weight problem I used to suffer. They’ll be required to make double cheeseburgers less yummy (and pay me back for the pants I’ve torn as well as emotional distress caused by years of being called Fatty McButterpants.
Who’s in?
Heave-ho let’s go!
I THINK WE SHOULD LAUNCH A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST THESE IRRESPONSIBLE MONEY CHASING JUDGES WHO MAKE RULINGS CAUSING LOST REVENUES TO SMALL BUSINESSES BUT IGNORE THE LARGE CASINOS. INCLUDE ALL THE BIG GUYS IN THE SUIT CUZ THEY GET SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THEY WOULD NOT SUCCEED.
The ruling just said they were allowed to sue. Right? It didn’t say they won any money yet.
Liability insurance covers if you’re negligent. I don’t see the bar a negligent here… so, can they simply deny coverage due to no negligent act by the insured?
Eventually, if you are a passenger in a vehicle driven by a drunk (>.08) driver, you will be arrested for DUI and lose your license as well.
It’s time to wake up and realize the neo-prohibitionist movement that is gaining ground right under your noses.
This is just another way to put bars out of business.
google duiblog
google ridl
google dammdrinker
google getmadd
Lets face it, the world would be a better and safer place without alcohol and illegal drugs…
Unfortunately, that will never happen.
WHATS SHOULD BAR OWNERS DO? THROW THEM OUT OF THE BAR AND TELL EM DRIVE ELSEWHERE THEREBY PUTTING THEM BEHIND THE WHEEL OF A CAR DRUNK??? THIS MUST BE A LIBERAL PANEL OF JUDGES.
coverage and liability are two separate things. You can’t deny coverage because there is no liability. If there is coverage, and it would have to be a LLCP since the CGL has an exclusion for alcohol related claims if you are in the business of selling alcohol, then you need to defend. Especially if you think there is no liability. Thats the whole essence of insurance. If we denied claims everytime we thought there was no liability, we’d be in big time bad faith. We defend whether we think there is liability or not.
This is one of the most retarded decisions. Now the bartenders, who in this case showed to prudent by not serving Hamby is still liable. The bartender was wrong, even being right. The judges are definately giving mixed signals, they now have to determine what is intoxicated and are liable if they don’t serve since they used proper judgement. It’s always someone else’s fault, I just can’t be held responsible for my actions.
Better? I beg to differ. Safer, probably. The safest the world can be is by sterilization of idiots.
Problem is that included in most liability policies is a provision to provide legal defense against suit. Even if the suit is frivilous or merit-less, a defense still needs to be prepared and presented. If by some miracle the case is settled as having no merit to show liability toward the bar or server it will still tie up the legal system (as well as racking up legal costs) which gets passed onto all policy holders.
Sadly, there’s no such thing as filing a suit to see what happens. The plaintiff may not worry since most ambulance chasing PI attorneys don’t charge unless you’re awarded a settlement. The point of most of these suits is to never get to court. File a rediculous lawsuit hoping that the defendant will realize that paying “go away money” voulentarily is more cost effective than actually trying to defend and risk being ordered to pay more.
Watch “A Civil Action” to see a great example of PI law proceedings.
If an individual needs to be of legal age to drink and that supposes the individual, by being of age, is responsible – then why would the establishment (especially one who did not serve him any alcoholic beverage) be responsible. Until we put the responsibility for actions back on the individual we are going to continue to see our society decline.
Aside from the asinine ruling by these judges; here’s what I’m wondering…
So the family of this idiot can now sue the bar, OK.
Just how much could a drunk, retarded, a-hole that whips his talley-whacker out in the middle of a public place to show off his “Prince Albert” really be worth?
I mean really; if we are going to put a number on stuff like this, let’s get a baseline.
I’d assume a stand-up member of society that actually contributes something meaningful to those around them would be worth quite a bit.
A priest, a doctor, school teachers, a loving mother, the occasional philanthropist.
All would be a tragic loss and worth their weight in gold.
But a substance abusing, weiner piercing, drunk retard that clearly has no regard for decency or the quiet enjoyment of anyone around him…
Screw ’em.
Throw his parents 200 bucks for the ambulance costs and a condom so they can’t produce another worthless offspring.
And that’s being generous.
RIGHT ON! THESE IDIOTS REPRODUCE AND VOTE. DON’T YOU THINK ANY ORGANISM WITH AN IQ LESS THAN 37 SHOULD HAVE HIS PRINCE ALBERT RETIRED?
I agree, this just goes too far. I guess if they turned them away at the door for being too drunk to enter, the family could sue because the doorman “forced them” to drive to another bar? Plus, if you look at a whole picture, it gets worse. The now-deceased passenger couldn’t drive because his own license was suspended for drinking & driving, so obviously he had no judgement when it came to this matter. They drank enough beer & rum in the car prior to entering the bar that, even after several hours of not drinking, the driver’s bac was twice the legal limit, which means they really had to be falling down drunk when they came in. Ad the driver apparently has no problem to admitting to drinking beer and rum in the car–isn’t that much worse than passengers drinking in a bar? What exactly was the bar supposed to do w/these guys–get them a hotel room? If a bar is supposed to protect passengers from getting into a car with drunk drivers, what’s next–do they need to protect drunken customers from having sex with strangers, and pay child support if they don’t & someone ends up pregnant?
Here’s an idea…If your license is suspended for DUI, not only may you not drive, but you are also forbidden to be in an establisnment that serves alcohol for the suspension period. If you are caught, it is a mandatory sentence of 6 months. You can use GPS ankle braclets to monitor and enforce. That’s one way to keep the drunken idiots home.
To help a drug addict, get rid of the pushers.
Bars and bartenders push alcohol, and nothing is done about it. Everywhere in New Jersey, patrons come in and drink for hours and hours, opening to closing, and they keep getting served, even when they’re drivers. We need more stringent laws and more examples of bartenders being held personally liable and losing their homes for ignoring how much they have served a patron and just continuing to ring up the cash register and the tips. After working in the court system for many years, it is painfully evident that alcohol destroys lives. Pushers of alcohol who do not obey the law should be held accountable and punished!
When I tended bar during college, I refused to serve intoxicated patrons. Sometimes the owner would serve them personally then, depending on who they were. He took that liability on himself.
I agree with any lawsuits making bar owners and bartenders take heed of the law and help to save lives — both of alcoholics and the innocent public!
I DON’T KNOW A PERFECT ANSWER. MY ANSWER IS THAT I WOULD NOT OWN A BAR. HOWEVER, IF A PERSON IS OF LEGAL AGE UNDER THE LAW, HE SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN ACTIONS, AND IF HE DECIDES TO DRINK, AND OVERIMBIBES, THAT SHOULD BE ENTIRELY HIS OWN FAULT!!!
Larry,
You are absolutely right. Too bad we don’t have any responsibility available for sale any more.
This all arises out of the mantra “It takes a village to raise a child.” No, it doesn’t; it takes parents that will teach the child to be responsible by holding them accountable for their actions.
It takes a family (traditional or non-traditional) to raise the child. The village has enough of its own problems to worry about.
Once a person learns to be accoutable, they don’t look to point fingers.
Unfortunately, we are in a society of troubled personalities and addictions. Alcohol is not only a drug, but a legal one. In addition, may children are born addicted, through Fetal Alcohol Syndrome. Look around you at the people who drink on a regular basis. Sadly astounding. Once a person drinking alcohol reaches a certain point, they are many times unable to rationally determine if they have had “too much.” So if you’re going to serve a legal drug with laws attached, be ready to obey them or suffer the consequences. My “anger” is in the disgusting fact that bartenders/owners/managers often are well aware the person is impaired but choose to put money first, disregarding the law and the public safety.
IT’S VERY SIMPLE REALLY—-IF I HAVE AN ADDICTION, I SHOULD NOT GO ANYWHERE NEAR MY TEMPTATION! SO IF MY PROBLEM IS ALCOHOL, I JUST DO NOT GO INTO A BAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. I THEN DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHEN I HAVE HAD ENOUGH, AND NEITHER DOES THE POOR BARTENDER!
“IF I HAVE AN ADDICTION, I SHOULD NOT GO ANYWHERE NEAR MY TEMPTATION!”
Why didn’t I think of that?! With so few bars and liquor stores, that should be so simple! You should run for office!
Ask most of the people you know if they would give up drinking socially, and you’ll see the extent of the problem