The parents need to just accept the fact that their kids are dead and move on with their lives.

quote:

Originally posted by mikester69 The parents need to just accept the fact that their kids are dead and move on with their lives.

If someone broke the law and it caused the death of someone related to you, would you just accept it and move on?

___________________

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 activate very true, but it IS the law, and it is mandatory that license holders follow it. It is also taught as part of the smart serve traning that all servers and bartenders are supposed to have if they serve alcohol. info on how to judge whether someone is intoxicated can be easily found on the AGCO website. http://www.agco.on.ca/pdf/Non-Forms/3057E.pdf They also provide this info to license holders and i'm told they also send regular email updates as well as through the mail

Just because its the law doesnt make it right.

quote:

Originally posted by Jayx1 because 16 people forced alcohol into them and then demanded they drive at gunpoint? If i were one of those 16 people charged with such bullshit id leave the country and surrender my citizenship. This place is ridiculous

The charges really have nothing to do with drinking and driving... they are Liquor control Act charges for serving persons who were intoxicated and permitting drunkenness. With a liquor license comes legal obligations under the LCA.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced For any negligence claim....which is where the money is....the employees will be covered under the insurance policy the club will have. In reality, any individual named in this lawsuit doesn't have much to worry about.

Except the part about up to one year in jail of course

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced In reality, any individual named in this lawsuit doesn't have much to worry about.

Except the fines can top $100,000. The employees would be fine as the master-servant principle will apply and the business will be on the hook for their fines; however, unless club-link has directors insurance the directors may be on the hook.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced If someone broke the law and it caused the death of someone related to you, would you just accept it and move on?

If I think the law is wrong, as I do in this case, then yes.

I am more interested in hearing if the duty of care owed is different for a golf course as opposed to a night club when it comes to serving alcohol.

What I'm affraid of is knee jerk reactions regarding alcohol being served at golf courses.

___________________

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 Orko If I think the law is wrong, as I do in this case, then yes.

Do you honestly believe that licensed establishments should have no obligation to monitor the consumption and intoxication levels of their patrons?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by RickyM you're just a shit version of Moral Hazard. At least he knows what he's talking about.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN lol, i love it when moral feels the need to lay the smack down

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.

How does this work? The moment an individual has ONE drink, they know it is illegal for them to drive. They are still within sound judgement to make other arrangements. If they decide to continue to drink or decide to drive at all, there is no doubt that they and they alone are responsible for making that choice the moment they took the first sip of liquor.

Lets get back to a society where like the ads in the 70s and 80s used to say "You are your own liquor control board". Can you imagine that message ever being conveyed in Ontario? It wasnt that long ago!!

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced If someone broke the law and it caused the death of someone related to you, would you just accept it and move on?

That is actually what the father did. He was quoted in today's globe saying that the only person he ever really blamed for this was his son.

I gave this some more thought and think the club is liable. Not because the kids drove - the law is about intoxication, not driving while intoxicated. There is no way anyone can think that after 31 or 35 or whatever drinks for 4 people, that no one is intoxicated. Moreover, I expect that the small atmosphere of the bar is going to mean that the club was likely able or should have been expected to keep an eye on the people that were drinking.

As Moral said, you don't like the rules of the liquor board, don't get a liquor license. Complaining about the rules after you break them doesn't fly in this country, thank god.