The award is exhorbitant and the rationale flawed. It was obviously made for the benefit of personal injury attorneys to gain access to deep pockets. The only one who is liable for getting drunk is the drunk. Anyone who negligently allows themself to become so intoxicated that they become a danger to other should bear 100% responsibility. If they don’t have liability insurance or have low limits…..that’s life. The Dramm Shop Act was sufficient. This is absurd. Our society is suit crazy and it’s costing billions in increased premiums and product costs. We have the lawyers to thank. All they do is profit off the misfortune of others. They contribute nothing to society aside from making commissions off their sacred “contingency fee”. To boot, juries are essentially stupid and incapable of assessing facts and making an objective liability decision and award.
Wow! You don’t know any facts about the injured or injuries but you declare the award exorbitant. Lawyers contribute “nothing to society?” –even those defending insurers? And juries are stupid– so you throw out the basis of our judicial system. Without lawyers and juries, who decides? You? Insurers? BTW, SC does not have a dram shop act. I happen to think the system works rather well to hold people responsible and that complaints about costs are exaggerated. It’s interesting that the billions in added product and premium “costs” bother you but not the lost lives or livelihoods of those injured. That’s life? In my experience, people like you are the first ones to scream and sue as soon as something happens to them or a loved one. Until then, you are all for toughing it out.
I’ll agree with the stupid juries part anyways. Lawyers don’t like juries smart enough to think for themselves.
That and most of the smart people are smart enough to get out of jury service in the first place.
I disagree with the judgement however. How was the bar owner to know that this particular person had already visited several previous establishments? If there were no overt signs of intoxification, how were they supposed to know to NOT serve this person?
How can a bartender know not to serve a patron who enters the bar already drunk, shows no signs of drunkenness, drinks & then kills someone while behind the wheel of a car? I can understand it if an individual has been consuming alcohol in a bar for hours, is noticably drunk, continues to be served & then maims or kills another. The bartender should be held accountable because he should have known better.
I don’t think they gave us enough info in this story one way or the other to make a decision. To blow a .212 is really high! This drunk may have consumed 6 whiskey shots in 60 minutes at the bar and therefore someone should have known. He may have been fall down drunk and patrons saw this.
However, to pierce the corporate veil and find the owners responsibile (assuming the owners were not also the bartenders), that is not good. We don’t know if they offered training to the bartenders and it was ignored. The owners may have had the right intentions, we don’t know.
Yes, $10 million seems like a huge award in this case, but piercing the corporate veil here just might have been appropriate. Here’s why I say this:
I note that the story indicates that this gentleman was a “regular” at the bar in question. It also mentions that the victims sued a couple of other local bars in the area that the guy frequented that night. It may be that the judge had evidence in front of him that showed the local bar owners and their employees knew this fellow’s habits. Looks like the loser bar here was the last one he frequented before the car accident. Maybe the judge allowed for piercing the corporate veil because the owners had personal knowledge of the man’s drinking habits and carelessly continued to sell him drinks anyway. Just a thought!
One wonders, in light of the fact that the bar owners will lose all they have worked for, and their families will suffer along with them, if Helton (the drunk) had assets, and if those assets were first awarded to the victims in a prior suit. Clearly the assignment of blame here should be about 90% Helton, and 10% bar owners / employees.
The following information was posted by WYFF Channel 4, Greenville SC.
It may be difficult for the Hartfields to actually get any of the money. The Getaway is set up as a non-profit corporation, making it harder for the claimants to collect from the club’s owners.
Some have questioned why a bar is a non-profit.
“In South Carolina, the way the law works is if to operate an establishment that sells alcohol on Sunday, you have to be a non-profit, or in a town that has passed an ordinance that allows it,” the bar’s counsel said.
He said the Getaway was set up as a non-profit in order to operate seven days a week.
Plaintiffs attorney alleged that defendants were trying to avoid liability and he questioned the lack of documentation that it operated as a non-profit corporation and records of charitable contributions.
Shou-Mie Morris, the Getaway’s owner, did not have liquor liability insurance. “It’s just one of those things that fell between the cracks”.
Getaway’s defense attorney said, “Certainly, as Miss Morris’ testimony showed, she was very conscious of that and tried to do it, and unfortunately, just didn’t get accomplished.” (Ed. note the bar had been operating for 9 years at the time of the incident).
Plaintiff’s counsel said that the law should require all businesses that serve alcohol to have liquor liability insurance. “As it stands now anyone can sell beer to the public in a private setting without having any insurance to cover any liability that may arise out of them serving alcohol. In my opinion, that’s irresponsible.”
I certainly sympathize with the victim here, but, I have to agree the award amount is exorbitant. Also, there is not enough info to really determine if the bartender really SHOULD have know the guy was drunk. If there is no dram shop, the bar would be liable regardless; however, what purpose does piercing the corp veil serve? Were the actions of the OWNER’s that wreckless? I don’t get that part. Sure, the bar may be liable in this case, but, were the owner’s even there? Did they contribute in any way to this sad situation? I would like to think piercing the corp veil would be only used in cases where the owners show a total disregard for human life or safety. I just don’t see that here.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? I would assume everyone who drank too much would get a ride or take a cab like I do. You know, like a reasonable prudent person would do? Oh yeah the judge threw that concept out. More attacks on business and now the business owners. Sweet, 25% unemployment here we come.
Kris, you are assuming that drunk people make rational decisions. Erroneous assumption as best. Are drunk people aware that they are drunk & therefore should not get behind the wheel & drive? I don’t think so. Common sense and the ability to make reasonable, prudent decisions goes right out the window.
First of all, let me make a few things expressly clear:
Jon-Erik’s (please note the misspelling of his name in the article) father was not injured. He was not even in the vehicle.
I was the driver of the vehicle when Jon-Erik (my boyfriend of 2 years at the time) and I were struck by a drunk driver in July of 2003, 2 months before I began my senior year of high school, and the summer after Jon-Erik graduated.
The person who hit us head-on was so intoxicated and heavily medicated that the coroner alleged he’d fallen asleep at the wheel, but I know this to be untrue because right before he hit us, he swerved his vehicle. He also had a to-go cup of liquor in his car, and a wheelchair in the back indicating he was already physically impaired.
The $10 million awarded to Jon-Erik’s father will be used to provide continuous care to Jon-Erik, since he will never be able to care for himself again. I doubt it will last his entire lifetime, so people claiming this is an “unjust award” should know all of the facts before becoming self-righteous.
I almost regret Googling the accident. It’s been almost 12 years since the accident, but I still cannot rid myself of the memories. There are also many, MANY other factors that are not included in this story, such as how the state of SC was also sued because they had failed to paint the road lines and turn lanes properly, to cite ONE example.
The award is exhorbitant and the rationale flawed. It was obviously made for the benefit of personal injury attorneys to gain access to deep pockets. The only one who is liable for getting drunk is the drunk. Anyone who negligently allows themself to become so intoxicated that they become a danger to other should bear 100% responsibility. If they don’t have liability insurance or have low limits…..that’s life. The Dramm Shop Act was sufficient. This is absurd. Our society is suit crazy and it’s costing billions in increased premiums and product costs. We have the lawyers to thank. All they do is profit off the misfortune of others. They contribute nothing to society aside from making commissions off their sacred “contingency fee”. To boot, juries are essentially stupid and incapable of assessing facts and making an objective liability decision and award.
Wow! You don’t know any facts about the injured or injuries but you declare the award exorbitant. Lawyers contribute “nothing to society?” –even those defending insurers? And juries are stupid– so you throw out the basis of our judicial system. Without lawyers and juries, who decides? You? Insurers? BTW, SC does not have a dram shop act. I happen to think the system works rather well to hold people responsible and that complaints about costs are exaggerated. It’s interesting that the billions in added product and premium “costs” bother you but not the lost lives or livelihoods of those injured. That’s life? In my experience, people like you are the first ones to scream and sue as soon as something happens to them or a loved one. Until then, you are all for toughing it out.
I’ll agree with the stupid juries part anyways. Lawyers don’t like juries smart enough to think for themselves.
That and most of the smart people are smart enough to get out of jury service in the first place.
I disagree with the judgement however. How was the bar owner to know that this particular person had already visited several previous establishments? If there were no overt signs of intoxification, how were they supposed to know to NOT serve this person?
How can a bartender know not to serve a patron who enters the bar already drunk, shows no signs of drunkenness, drinks & then kills someone while behind the wheel of a car? I can understand it if an individual has been consuming alcohol in a bar for hours, is noticably drunk, continues to be served & then maims or kills another. The bartender should be held accountable because he should have known better.
I don’t think they gave us enough info in this story one way or the other to make a decision. To blow a .212 is really high! This drunk may have consumed 6 whiskey shots in 60 minutes at the bar and therefore someone should have known. He may have been fall down drunk and patrons saw this.
However, to pierce the corporate veil and find the owners responsibile (assuming the owners were not also the bartenders), that is not good. We don’t know if they offered training to the bartenders and it was ignored. The owners may have had the right intentions, we don’t know.
anytime there is a death involved they find deep pockets.
Hello All:
Yes, $10 million seems like a huge award in this case, but piercing the corporate veil here just might have been appropriate. Here’s why I say this:
I note that the story indicates that this gentleman was a “regular” at the bar in question. It also mentions that the victims sued a couple of other local bars in the area that the guy frequented that night. It may be that the judge had evidence in front of him that showed the local bar owners and their employees knew this fellow’s habits. Looks like the loser bar here was the last one he frequented before the car accident. Maybe the judge allowed for piercing the corporate veil because the owners had personal knowledge of the man’s drinking habits and carelessly continued to sell him drinks anyway. Just a thought!
One wonders, in light of the fact that the bar owners will lose all they have worked for, and their families will suffer along with them, if Helton (the drunk) had assets, and if those assets were first awarded to the victims in a prior suit. Clearly the assignment of blame here should be about 90% Helton, and 10% bar owners / employees.
Granted he is a drunk.. but isn’t that what the bar is there for?
The following information was posted by WYFF Channel 4, Greenville SC.
It may be difficult for the Hartfields to actually get any of the money. The Getaway is set up as a non-profit corporation, making it harder for the claimants to collect from the club’s owners.
Some have questioned why a bar is a non-profit.
“In South Carolina, the way the law works is if to operate an establishment that sells alcohol on Sunday, you have to be a non-profit, or in a town that has passed an ordinance that allows it,” the bar’s counsel said.
He said the Getaway was set up as a non-profit in order to operate seven days a week.
Plaintiffs attorney alleged that defendants were trying to avoid liability and he questioned the lack of documentation that it operated as a non-profit corporation and records of charitable contributions.
Shou-Mie Morris, the Getaway’s owner, did not have liquor liability insurance. “It’s just one of those things that fell between the cracks”.
Getaway’s defense attorney said, “Certainly, as Miss Morris’ testimony showed, she was very conscious of that and tried to do it, and unfortunately, just didn’t get accomplished.” (Ed. note the bar had been operating for 9 years at the time of the incident).
Plaintiff’s counsel said that the law should require all businesses that serve alcohol to have liquor liability insurance. “As it stands now anyone can sell beer to the public in a private setting without having any insurance to cover any liability that may arise out of them serving alcohol. In my opinion, that’s irresponsible.”
I certainly sympathize with the victim here, but, I have to agree the award amount is exorbitant. Also, there is not enough info to really determine if the bartender really SHOULD have know the guy was drunk. If there is no dram shop, the bar would be liable regardless; however, what purpose does piercing the corp veil serve? Were the actions of the OWNER’s that wreckless? I don’t get that part. Sure, the bar may be liable in this case, but, were the owner’s even there? Did they contribute in any way to this sad situation? I would like to think piercing the corp veil would be only used in cases where the owners show a total disregard for human life or safety. I just don’t see that here.
So is it illegal for a bar to serve alcohol to anyone who is over the legal limit for driving? That is an insanely high standard.
They would need to assume that every person there is driving a car, then give them a breathalyzer test before every drink they served.
That doesn’t sound reasonable.
What ever happened to personal responsibility? I would assume everyone who drank too much would get a ride or take a cab like I do. You know, like a reasonable prudent person would do? Oh yeah the judge threw that concept out. More attacks on business and now the business owners. Sweet, 25% unemployment here we come.
Kris, you are assuming that drunk people make rational decisions. Erroneous assumption as best. Are drunk people aware that they are drunk & therefore should not get behind the wheel & drive? I don’t think so. Common sense and the ability to make reasonable, prudent decisions goes right out the window.
First of all, let me make a few things expressly clear:
Jon-Erik’s (please note the misspelling of his name in the article) father was not injured. He was not even in the vehicle.
I was the driver of the vehicle when Jon-Erik (my boyfriend of 2 years at the time) and I were struck by a drunk driver in July of 2003, 2 months before I began my senior year of high school, and the summer after Jon-Erik graduated.
The person who hit us head-on was so intoxicated and heavily medicated that the coroner alleged he’d fallen asleep at the wheel, but I know this to be untrue because right before he hit us, he swerved his vehicle. He also had a to-go cup of liquor in his car, and a wheelchair in the back indicating he was already physically impaired.
The $10 million awarded to Jon-Erik’s father will be used to provide continuous care to Jon-Erik, since he will never be able to care for himself again. I doubt it will last his entire lifetime, so people claiming this is an “unjust award” should know all of the facts before becoming self-righteous.
I almost regret Googling the accident. It’s been almost 12 years since the accident, but I still cannot rid myself of the memories. There are also many, MANY other factors that are not included in this story, such as how the state of SC was also sued because they had failed to paint the road lines and turn lanes properly, to cite ONE example.