TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Golf club, employees and directors charged over crash that killed 3
Pages (4): « 1 2 [3] 4 »

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper Here we go with the conspiracy theories

ive actually seen it first hand

quote:

Originally posted by Orko How strong were the drinks? Over how many hours were the drinks dispensed, and how much food they eat prior, and during the event? How big were the people? So many factors.

Sure, but all of those things considered, unless they were there for 10 hours each, 35 drinks across 4 people can be considered by a reasonable person to lead to intoxication. I think the number of drinks will be a big factor when this goes to court.

It's a big stretch to serve 35 drinks to 4 people in a single day and not think, hmmm, I wonder if they are intoxicated yet.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 ive actually seen it first hand

I don't doubt that the rules are probably not enforced equally amongst all establishments; however, charges can be fought, if the charges are not just and the crown cannot prove the intoxication of the person to the court's satisfaction then the charge would be quashed.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Sorry Jay but I have to disagree with you on this one. As the proprietor of a tavern you are selling a controlled substance, a potentially dangerous substance, and inviting people onto your property to consume that substance. That creates a duty of care to ensure the safety of all persons you invited into your establishment, which in-turn necessitates monitoring and controlling the consumption of the controlled substance. I would argue that the vast majority of North Americans agree with me as I cannot think of a single North American jurisdiction where there is not some regulation on the consumption of alcohol in a licensed establishment.

My oh my how do people in the rest of the world survive without daddy government watching out for them? Whats next? Convenience stores being held responsible if someone smokes a cigarette in a playground next to a child? Seriously, duty of care means providing the tools needed for the ADULT to make the right choice. Providing access to taxis is a good example. Going further just shifts the blame from the person responsible to the person with the money in order for you to cash in

You can be intoxicated after 2 drinks, hell for some people 1 drink.

I just think its the wrong word, or the application of this is incorrect.

We will have to agree to disagree, because I have made all the points I would like to make, and you have made yours. I am standing beside the bar on this one. No pun intended.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 My oh my how do people in the rest of the world survive without daddy government watching out for them? Whats next? Convenience stores being held responsible if someone smokes a cigarette in a playground next to a child? Seriously, duty of care means providing the tools needed for the ADULT to make the right choice. Providing access to taxis is a good example. Going further just shifts the blame from the person responsible to the person with the money in order for you to cash in

We're not talking about tort liability in this thread Jay... don't confuse the issue... we're talking about legal obligation, which the tavern had.

If you want to talk the tort implications I can do so on both sides as I've handled claims on both sides of that issue; however, there had been no tort claim against the tavern so it's neither here nor there for this discussion.

BTW, I agree that people should have more personal responsibility; however, under law the tavern has responsibility as well... they should accept that rather then looking to blame someone else by arguing the law is unjust.

See what I did there

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I don't doubt that the rules are probably not enforced equally amongst all establishments; however, charges can be fought, if the charges are not just and the crown cannot prove the intoxication of the person to the court's satisfaction then the charge would be quashed.

AGCO court is not the same as regular court. In AGCO court the charges dont have to be proven. In fact it is up to you to prove that you didnt commit these acts. Also, rarely is the patron themselves charged or even identified. What usually happens is that the AGCO racks up a bunch of charges and tells you to plead guilty to a third of them. Then they tell you to shut down for a month or lose your licence. Its a bully tactic. This is why half the entertainment district is closed for the month of january. It has little to do with liquor or law and everything to do with an agenda.

I have no respect for the AGCO and absolutely no respect for third party blame. If you are underage in a club, you should be charged with fraud. If you get wasted and drive, you get whats coming to u. The end.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko You can be intoxicated after 2 drinks, hell for some people 1 drink. I just think its the wrong word, or the application of this is incorrect. We will have to agree to disagree, because I have made all the points I would like to make, and you have made yours. I am standing beside the bar on this one. No pun intended.

I agree, intoxication can be difficult to determine, which is why the evidence in support of the persons being considered to be intoxicated will need to be heard by a judge and the judge will decide if the employees of the tavern should have been able to make the determination as to whether or not the person was intoxicated.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard We're not talking about tort liability in this thread Jay... don't confuse the issue... we're talking about legal obligation, which the tavern had. If you want to talk the tort implications I can do so on both sides as I've handled claims on both sides of that issue; however, there had been no tort claim against the tavern so it's neither here nor there for this discussion. BTW, I agree that people should have more personal responsibility; however, under law the tavern has responsibility as well... they should accept that rather then looking to blame someone else by arguing the law is unjust. See what I did there

I understand there is the letter of the law. I am also talking about the spirit of it. Why its there and why this club was charged. Lets face it, there would have been no charge laid had these idiots had somehow made it home safely. I know the charge isnt specifically "allowing people to drink and drive" but implicitly it is.

And yes tort law is what is ruining north american society. We are so scared of being creative and formulating new ideas for fear of being sued into the stone age. Its why the rest of the world is progressing far more rapidly than we are.

How can you (server/owner) safeguard yourself in that type of instance? Most of the bars I go to are within walking distance for me so I rarely to never drive. If you asked me for my keys I would tell you I am walking. So do you cut me off if I do not have keys to give you? What if I drove and lied to you?

Why is it your responsibility instead of mine?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 . Its why the rest of the world is progressing far more rapidly than we are.

like who?

quote:

Originally posted by love_child Why is it your responsibility instead of mine?

because in canada the government thinks that adults are mental midgets without a mind of their own and need to have their hand held at every step.

quote:

Originally posted by Skipper like who?

Europe and Asia for starters.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 Europe and Asia for starters.

Country specific pls

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Again, these charges have nothing to do with driving.

They have something to do with driving because the patrons were hurt/killed while driving. If they walked home, and slept and were fine, then there would be no investigation. Some it obviously has something to do with the act of them driving and getting hurt. So to try and take that out of the equation is wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 AGCO court is not the same as regular court. In AGCO court the charges dont have to be proven. In fact it is up to you to prove that you didnt commit these acts. Also, rarely is the patron themselves charged or even identified. What usually happens is that the AGCO racks up a bunch of charges and tells you to plead guilty to a third of them. Then they tell you to shut down for a month or lose your licence. Its a bully tactic. This is why half the entertainment district is closed for the month of january. It has little to do with liquor or law and everything to do with an agenda. I have no respect for the AGCO and absolutely no respect for third party blame. If you are underage in a club, you should be charged with fraud. If you get wasted and drive, you get whats coming to u. The end.

I was under the impression that these charges are to be heard in Ontario Court of Justice.

quote:

Originally posted by love_child How can you (server/owner) safeguard yourself in that type of instance? Most of the bars I go to are within walking distance for me so I rarely to never drive. If you asked me for my keys I would tell you I am walking. So do you cut me off if I do not have keys to give you? What if I drove and lied to you? Why is it your responsibility instead of mine?

if you appear intoxicated the bar has the right to cut you off....it doesn't matter if you drove, flew, walked or rode a monkey to the bar.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko They have something to do with driving because the patrons were hurt/killed while driving. If they walked home, and slept and were fine, then there would be no investigation. Some it obviously has something to do with the act of them driving and getting hurt. So to try and take that out of the equation is wrong.

if they were walking home and stumbled down a cliff and died these charges would still be laid.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I agree, intoxication can be difficult to determine, which is why the evidence in support of the persons being considered to be intoxicated will need to be heard by a judge and the judge will decide if the employees of the tavern should have been able to make the determination as to whether or not the person was intoxicated.

Intoxication is pretty easy to determine. i was the head doorman at a club downtown and i shot ppl down all the time for showing up at my bar "intoxicated"...they werent piss drunk, hammered, falling all over the place...but they were intoxicated.

as far as ppl inside the bar, we HAD to go over and above to make sure we covered our asses for everyone who looked bad.

i kinda agree its ridiculous...theres a case where an employee took a person home in a cab...got them inside their house...the person came back out, got into their car...had an accident...and the bar was still charged...its really shitty.

quote:

Originally posted by love_child How can you (server/owner) safeguard yourself in that type of instance? Most of the bars I go to are within walking distance for me so I rarely to never drive. If you asked me for my keys I would tell you I am walking. So do you cut me off if I do not have keys to give you? What if I drove and lied to you? Why is it your responsibility instead of mine?

honestly, its really a matter of making the effort...we keep detailed incident reports just in case of things like this...35 drinks for 4 people is grossly irresponsible and im sure thats what ultimately led to the guilty verdict...

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 How i would fix this: Make the drunk driving law ZERO tolerance meaning no alcohol allowed in your system. Then remove 3rd party blame completely.

Please, tell me you're joking. You of all people should understand that criminalizing a non-criminal behaviour simply creates more criminals.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko They have something to do with driving because the patrons were hurt/killed while driving. If they walked home, and slept and were fine, then there would be no investigation. Some it obviously has something to do with the act of them driving and getting hurt. So to try and take that out of the equation is wrong.

The accident and the post mortems that obviously followed were what tipped off the authorities. that doesn't make the charge about driving - the accident is simply evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by Orko They have something to do with driving because the patrons were hurt/killed while driving. If they walked home, and slept and were fine, then there would be no investigation. Some it obviously has something to do with the act of them driving and getting hurt. So to try and take that out of the equation is wrong.

well duh. but the fact that they crashed and died is what brought attention to the fact that they were serving intoxicated customers. In a situation like this, they have to charge them as it was clear that an offence was committed. They have an obligation to enforce the rules, same as the license holder has an obligation to abide by the rules.

Places get charged for this all the time downtown... bars...nightclubs� it's not something that's strictly reserved for highly publicized instances like this one. It's pretty common.

quote:

Originally posted by love_child How can you (server/owner) safeguard yourself in that type of instance?

pretty simple... if someone is visibly drunk, make the decision as to what's more important to you. five more dollars, or your livelihood.



I defintely don't agree with all the laws regarding serving alcohol, but the fact is.. the law is the law, and it's pretty fucking easy to follow it.

quote:

Originally posted by DigiNut Please, tell me you're joking.

i lol'd at this as well, did jayx1 actually propose a ban?

the day i can't have a beer (or 2) on the a golf course is the day i move.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.