quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard Second - the social conditions in many areas that do not have last call are vastly different then they are here... many of these places do not have the same litigious society or case law stating that a tavern can be held legally liable for the actions of intoxicated patrons. In these areas it is not necessary to have host liability insurance as the tavern cannot be sued anyway.

Good, then let THE BUSINESS OWNER DECIDE. Not the government. If the business owner wishes to incur costs then its his choice.

You see how this went from "preventing people from being stupid" arguement to a "make decisions on behalf of business owners" arguement?

You fell into your own trap.

Last edited by Jayx1 on Aug-17-2007 at 21:41

quote:

Originally posted by loca Which makes sense IMO. You alone are responsible for what you do when you drink, not the establishment. Essentially though i agree with what Dr. DAS and Zentac are saying... Canada is just not ready to handle that kind of freedom. And that's sad.

exactly.. thats a whole other dumb down lefty law that needs to be dealt with.

No wonder people here are dumb when they:

a) arent forced to make decisions for themselves

and

b) when they do make a foolish decision, SOMEONE else is liable for it.

quote:

Originally posted by loca Which makes sense IMO. You alone are responsible for what you do when you drink, not the establishment. Essentially though i agree with what Dr. DAS and Zentac are saying... Canada is just not ready to handle that kind of freedom. And that's sad.

Although I agree....I do see both sides of the coin here. A club/bar invites people into their establishment with the ultimate goal being to serve alcohol and make money. As one drinks their perception of reality changes and they may not make the same decisions as they would if they were sober. The bar owes a duty of care to not over serve someone and put them in a state of mind that would prevent them from making rational decisions. If you lost a loved one because of a drunk driver who had pounded back 12 beers while at the club I know I would want the club to be held at least partially liable for allowing someone to drink that much when the should have known that someone cannot function properly with that much alcohol in them.

Obviously a club is not going to be able to sit there and test every person to see if they are drunk. All the club has to do is show that they have taken all reasonable and prudent steps to prevent someone from leaving their establishment in a drunken state of mind.
Thats why you see bar staff at the exits to the bar most of the time....if something happens and someone tries to sue, they can say they took reasonable steps to prevent the person from leaving in an intoxicated state and they did not see any clear indications that the person was intoxicated.

I think part of the reason why we cannot be responsible when it comes to drinking is having such a high legal age for drinking. I don't see why we don't just get rid of the drinking age. If you grow up with the ability and the responsibility of drinking your entire life then the thrill of going out and getting drunk isn't the same.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced The club is legally responsible for the patrons and how much alcohol they consume. If a bar is only serving alcohol from 10 pm till 2 am there is only a certain amount that will be served per person. If you are serving alcohol from 10 pm until 8 am then the amount served per person would increase dramatically. It is reasonable to assume that a greater number of patrons will be drinking (ie...people who show up to guv after last call at other bars). The probability of a patron leaving the bar intoxicated and doing something that the bar could be held liable for increases and therefore the business becomes a greater risk. Insurance is based on risk and if something is a greater risk its going to cost more to insure it.

So what about bars that are open 11am-2am every day? Perhaps they should slap a law on them?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 So what about bars that are open 11am-2am every day? Perhaps they should slap a law on them?

the same host liability laws apply to them...even the strip clubs have the same host liability laws.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Although I agree....I do see both sides of the coin here. A club/bar invites people into their establishment with the ultimate goal being to serve alcohol and make money. As one drinks their perception of reality changes and they may not make the same decisions as they would if they were sober. The bar owes a duty of care to not over serve someone and put them in a state of mind that would prevent them from making rational decisions. If you lost a loved one because of a drunk driver who had pounded back 12 beers while at the club I know I would want the club to be held at least partially liable for allowing someone to drink that much when the should have known that someone cannot function properly with that much alcohol in them.

I wouldnt. The blame would be put squarly on the person who drank and drove. Unless of course the club forced him at gunpoint to drink and then get in his car and drive. Then maybe theyd be responsible. Of course, my attitude would probably be different if say i could sue a club that probably has a lot more money than the person who hit my loved one where id end up with next to nothing. Yeah, if i were a bloodsucking leech i think id definately have a different opinion.

quote:

Obviously a club is not going to be able to sit there and test every person to see if they are drunk. All the club has to do is show that they have taken all reasonable and prudent steps to prevent someone from leaving their establishment in a drunken state of mind.

Do you know AGCO law? It doesnt matter how much care you claim to have given. If buddy has one drink at your club and he intoxicated enough to drive over the limit and kill someone, the club is at fault. No questions asked.

That's just plain wrong.

quote:

Thats why you see bar staff at the exits to the bar most of the time....if something happens and someone tries to sue, they can say they took reasonable steps to prevent the person from leaving in an intoxicated state and they did not see any clear indications that the person was intoxicated.

No, the AGCO will say that the club failed to prevent this person from leaving drunk in spite of any measure they took because it still happened. Again you think third party liability is about safety? No way! Its a left wing scheme to broker money out of a corperation that they theorize would have more money than the patron who actually committed the act.

quote:

I think part of the reason why we cannot be responsible when it comes to drinking is having such a high legal age for drinking. I don't see why we don't just get rid of the drinking age. If you grow up with the ability and the responsibility of drinking your entire life then the thrill of going out and getting drunk isn't the same.

INTERESTING

So you say that people are too dumb to make their own decisions. Now you tell me that if people were given the ability to make a decision at a younger age, they might be able to make better decisions.

Thanks for proving my theory correct.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced the same host liability laws apply to them...even the strip clubs have the same host liability laws.

But, you just told me that clubs that are open from 10PM-2AM might be in trouble because they can serve under a new law till 4 or 5am. But you are telling me that a bar that is currently open much longer under the current law is fine?

So which is it?

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 I wouldnt. The blame would be put squarly on the person who drank and drove. Unless of course the club forced him at gunpoint to drink and then get in his car and drive. Then maybe theyd be responsible. Of course, my attitude would probably be different if say i could sue a club that probably has a lot more money than the person who hit my loved one where id end up with next to nothing. Yeah, if i were a bloodsucking leech i think id definately have a different opinion. Do you know AGCO law? It doesnt matter how much care you claim to have given. If buddy has one drink at your club and he intoxicated enough to drive over the limit and kill someone, the club is at fault. No questions asked. That's just plain wrong. No, the AGCO will say that the club failed to prevent this person from leaving drunk in spite of any measure they took because it still happened. Again you think third party liability is about safety? No way! Its a left wing scheme to broker money out of a corperation that they theorize would have more money than the patron who actually committed the act. INTERESTING So you say that people are too dumb to make their own decisions. Now you tell me that if people were given the ability to make a decision at a younger age, they might be able to make better decisions. Thanks for proving my theory correct.

AGCO has nothing to do with determining fault when it comes to whether or not a club/bar is liable for over serving patrons....that is strickly an insurance issue.

If you sue somebody for hitting someone while drunk...once again you are dealing with an insurance company...although the limits on the policy would be the minimal coverage. If you were to take action against the bar/club you would also be dealing with an insurance company but the liability limits would most likely be higher.

All I stated was that when someone is intoxicated their ability to make rational decisions is impaired. If people grow up with alcohol as a normal part of life....the thrill of getting drunk isn't the same.

The big difference between the local tavern thats open all day and a night club is the clientelle. The local tavern is paying for host liability insurance as well.....from an insurance stand point....a club with a 100s or even 1000s of 20 somethings partying and drinking is a greater risk then then a strip club with 20-40 horny old men drinking and looking at boobies. There are obviously other factors but the price you pay for insurance is all based on the probability that the insurance company is going to have to make payments on a claim. By a club staying open later or having no last call at all....you increase the probability that something is going to happen and they are going to have to pay a claim therefore, an increase in the cost for insurance is required which the club will offset by making the customers pay for the increase.

___________________

quote:

Scott has been introduced to the rave scene, and Ecstasy, by Craig. The two of them go out on the weekends, with some of Craigs friends, and stay up all night, dancing in a drug-fueled trance.

Last edited by Moral Hazard on Apr-26-2011 at 07:48

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Although I agree....I do see both sides of the coin here. A club/bar invites people into their establishment with the ultimate goal being to serve alcohol and make money. As one drinks their perception of reality changes and they may not make the same decisions as they would if they were sober. The bar owes a duty of care to not over serve someone and put them in a state of mind that would prevent them from making rational decisions. If you lost a loved one because of a drunk driver who had pounded back 12 beers while at the club I know I would want the club to be held at least partially liable for allowing someone to drink that much when the should have known that someone cannot function properly with that much alcohol in them. Obviously a club is not going to be able to sit there and test every person to see if they are drunk. All the club has to do is show that they have taken all reasonable and prudent steps to prevent someone from leaving their establishment in a drunken state of mind. Thats why you see bar staff at the exits to the bar most of the time....if something happens and someone tries to sue, they can say they took reasonable steps to prevent the person from leaving in an intoxicated state and they did not see any clear indications that the person was intoxicated. I think part of the reason why we cannot be responsible when it comes to drinking is having such a high legal age for drinking. I don't see why we don't just get rid of the drinking age. If you grow up with the ability and the responsibility of drinking your entire life then the thrill of going out and getting drunk isn't the same.

I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I had forgotten to mention that while Belgium has no last call, we also do not have a legal drinking age. And you are quite right when you say that when you are able to start drinking from age zero, the thrill of getting drunk is not as omni-present as it is when you are allowed to legally start drinking at 19 (or 21 for the states).

All this being said, I don't think that Canada would actually get rid of the legal drinking age limit and therefore the likeliness of last call being abolished is also highly unlikely

___________________
Whatever it may take I keep on trying.

Apologies for getting back to the original topic, but does anyone have an update on the Circa license?

___________________
kotsy.ca | maximum drums (podcast) | facebook

Download my latest podcast or go to hell

Here's my 2 cents on this abolishing last call:

If any of you guys been to Top 40 clubs, bartenders are serving like 10 people all at one time because they only have a couple hours to work, and serve everyone their drinks. Say there isn't a last call, people would approach the bartenders on a steady basis and even the bartenders themselves can keep an eye out for really drunk patrons.

Also, when it's last call from 2-3 AM there's hundreds of people leaving the club all at the same time, the security staff cannot ensure that everyone is safe to drive or needs time to sober up. If there's no last call than security would have more time to make sure that people are not leaving the clubs really intoxicated just for liability issues.

quote:

Originally posted by loca I absolutely agree with what you are saying. I had forgotten to mention that while Belgium has no last call, we also do not have a legal drinking age. And you are quite right when you say that when you are able to start drinking from age zero, the thrill of getting drunk is not as omni-present as it is when you are allowed to legally start drinking at 19 (or 21 for the states). All this being said, I don't think that Canada would actually get rid of the legal drinking age limit and therefore the likeliness of last call being abolished is also highly unlikely

yeah same thing back at either of my homes

but then again it's sad to see drunk 15 year olds staggering about the clubs/bars area, or doing crazy shit

___________________
Just surrender yourself to the rhythm,
With your hands up in the sky,
Feel the energy deep inside your system
And leave this world behind...