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.

All questions the insurance adjuster would be asking in their investigation of any claim.

___________________

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 Well that is exactly it. At what point is somebody intoxicated and at what point do you stop serving them? I just think the law is too open for this sort of abuse, and wrongful accusation.

That's why these charges are adjudicated on by a judge in open court where evidence regarding the intoxication must be produced.

quote:

What about a bar downtown at last call? Are they going to start rejecting people all over the place because they are drunk, and might do something stupid?

If they wish to comply with the LCA then yes... sadly, the fines are not high enough or enforced frequently enough to negate the promise of additional revenue received by serving patrons that should be cut off (under the law).

quote:

These young guys could have easily got ass loaded, and then gone and soaked in the sun beside the pool all afternoon, considering it was a resort. How were the staff supposed to know they were going to go driving home right after? Sure if they saw them drink like fish, then somebody from the bar actually SEES them try to drive off, they should try and stop them, that is just a moral obligation.

Again, these charges have nothing to do with driving.

___________________

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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?