Bartender charged for DUI deaths

[GreenGoo]

Isgrim is correct

And that’s what’s truly important.

I put that in there just for you Izzy.

[Alefroth]

"Inappropriate volume"
"Glazed look in the eye"
"Shallow breathing"

Haha, that's exactly the kind of bullshit that makes me reluctant to support the existence of such laws. What the hell is 'shallow breathing", when we are talking about people milling around in a bar or nightclub? You know, in dim lighting and/or flashing or multicolored lighting how the heck is a bartender supposed to know how deep or shallow my breathing is at any given moment?

No bartender is going to base their decision to serve you or not based strictly on your breathing.

[ImLawBoy]

There's a law like this in probably just about every jurisdiction in the US (and probably in Commonwealth countries, too), but you don't hear a lot about bartenders doing hard time for overserving guests. Why? Because 99.99% of the time, the state doesn't even know about the event to prosecute. And even if they do, prosecutors aren't going to waste their time and resources going after a lot of bartenders. In other words, the law is effectively limited by prosecutorial discretion. It tends to come out for really egregious cases, like, say, dramatically overserving underaged kids who then crash and die. It doesn't come out when someone gets a DUI on the way home from the bar because they were swerving among lanes.

[gameoverman]

What about "Can't walk in a straight line?"

I'm assuming you mean police testing drivers. Because in most of the clubs and other places I've been drinking there are too many people between you and the bartender for anyone to walk in a straight line. You have to weave your way through the crowd to get to the bar. That's the only time the bartender will see you walking.

Under laboratory conditions, where it's brightly lit and there is only the bartender and a person who may or may not be drunk, and there is no one or nothing else distracting the bartender, then yes I can agree that most experienced bartenders will be able to assess how drunk the person is most of the time. In the real world though that's a different story. I think it's weird to make laws that only work under ideal conditions. Realistically all we can do with the bartender/customer dynamic is let the bartenders know that if something happens and there is evidence they farked up, then there will be serious consequences. For instance, if surveillance video shows the customer fall down drunk with the bartender watching and that customer still gets served and someone later gets hurt or dies because of that person being intoxicated, that bartender should be doomed. Otherwise it's the person who made the effort to get drunk who is really responsible for what happens.

[Lorini]

There's a law like this in probably just about every jurisdiction in the US (and probably in Commonwealth countries, too), but you don't hear a lot about bartenders doing hard time for overserving guests. Why? Because 99.99% of the time, the state doesn't even know about the event to prosecute. And even if they do, prosecutors aren't going to waste their time and resources going after a lot of bartenders. In other words, the law is effectively limited by prosecutorial discretion. It tends to come out for really egregious cases, like, say, dramatically overserving underaged kids who then crash and die. It doesn't come out when someone gets a DUI on the way home from the bar because they were swerving among lanes.

I've read about them going after bartenders in CA because the state is always looking for money through fining. I don't know that the bartenders went to jail though; CA may regard the infraction as a business not personal infraction.

[GreenGoo]

It can be done, and with experience, can be done fairly easily.

We can talk hypotheticals all night, discuss the checklist like it's gospel, and imagine that only robots who will never interact socially with the customer will have to use the checklist and nothing else, but in the end, professional service staff can and do make the call all the time. In fact, most of the time it's easy, and not because the guy is a stumble bum. A look, a word, a body position, and then you pay closer attention. You engage in conversation. Get more than 3 words out of him. Make him wait and observe him while he waits. There are a million tells when someone is getting in their cups. Hell, if the customer has been in your place all night, you know exactly how many drinks they've had.

Whether it's the law or not, a good establishment and server doesn't *want* to over serve anyone. Most are paying attention and not going to blindly serve booze to anyone who has money, law or no. Checklist or no. Opinions to the contrary or no.

[Alefroth]

I think it's weird to make laws that only work under ideal conditions.

I guess it's good then that these laws don't only work under ideal conditions.

Otherwise it's the person who made the effort to get drunk who is really responsible for what happens.

Clearly they aren't the only ones responsible, as the topic of this thread proves.

[LawBeefaroni]

Whether it's the law or not, a good establishment and server doesn't *want* to over serve anyone. Most are paying attention and not going to blindly serve booze to anyone who has money, law or no. Checklist or no. Opinions to the contrary or no.

But what about:

The *entire* reason that bartenders are now liable on a personal level above and beyond the business is because they have every incentive to over serve and very little incentive to cut someone off. The law didn't always make the employee personally liable (or even the establishment) with predictable results. That's the law. The goal there is to make people think about whether that extra buck is worth potentially being financially ruined.

[GreenGoo]

What about what?

[Alefroth]

Going out on a limb here... what about the contradiction?

[GreenGoo]

What contradiction?

I.e. there isn't one.

[LawBeefaroni]

Well, I mean on page one I got the feeling that the gist of your points was:

The *entire* reason that bartenders are now liable on a personal level above and beyond the business is because they have every incentive to over serve and very little incentive to cut someone off. The law didn't always make the employee personally liable (or even the establishment) with predictable results.

I.e., the law is necessary because otherwise they would err on the side of overserving for money.



On page two, there's this:

Most are paying attention and not going to blindly serve booze to anyone who has money, law or no.

I.e. a law isn't so necessary.

[GreenGoo]

Just read the words I wrote, don't paraphrase. It's right there.

*All* establishments and servers are incentivized to over serve.

*Good* establishments and servers don't want to over serve.

The law, like most laws, is there for those that would hurt other people for personal gain.

If you want to over serve, you're not a good person/establishment. That there is personal profit to be found if you do doesn't change that fact. In fact, I would suggest *wanting* to poison others past their limits so you can get more money from them is pretty much the definition of "not good", particularly if you know that it may lead to harm/death of the customer and/or innocent people.

That said, I like to tie one on, or used to do. I understand that servers are under enormous pressure to sell just enough for maximum profit, but not too much. It's a tight rope, which is why I've been advocating this whole time for paying extra for skilled, experienced staff.

[Jaymann]

Who can we indict for the death of this thread?

[GreenGoo]

You?

The thread's hardly dead.

[Jeff V]

I would hope that for someone to be indicted, there is more proof than a customer blowing a 1.5 or whatever. There would have to be witnesses attesting to the bartender continuing to serve someone who was without a doubt too impaired to drive (such as falling off the bar stool drunk). For reasons mentioned elsewhere in this thread, how else are you going to know unless laws are passed requiring a breathalyzer blow with each drink ordered?

Only once ever did a server refuse to take my order, and it was more out of spite than anything. We had a late afternoon gathering from work at a restaurant after a charity event where we spent the afternoon doing yard work for old people. I had two - two! beers and inquired about what other beers they had. I stopped her in the middle of her "Bud, Bud Lite, Miller, Coors..." spiel and asked her to fast-forward to good beer. She apparently didn't care for the interruption and declared I had too much and would not be served another.

Fortunately, she was not the only server tending our group.

[gameoverman]

I think it's weird to make laws that only work under ideal conditions.

I guess it's good then that these laws don't only work under ideal conditions.

Otherwise it's the person who made the effort to get drunk who is really responsible for what happens.

Clearly they aren't the only ones responsible, as the topic of this thread proves.

The law does not make something right, or make it wrong. The law is not morality. Slavery was legal once, that didn't make it right. It's relatively easy to get people to take part in reactionary efforts, such as passing a law that ostensibly improves public safety. All I'm saying is if that law ignores reality then it's bullshit, it's not right, and serves no purpose other than satisfying some people's need to 'do something' about a problem. It's still the law, still enforceable, but it's not right.

Laws about drinking ages make sense because it's clear what a bartender is expected to do- verify the age by looking at whatever ID the customer can produce. I think stuff like "I can tell when someone is drunk" is basically hocus pocus, it's buying in to the idea that certain people have these magical abilities to see or sense things us mere mortals can't. I don't think law should be based on that sort of thing. An experienced bartender taking a look at someone and judging their intoxication level is just making an educated guess, with the emphasis on guess.

[ImLawBoy]

I think it's weird to make laws that only work under ideal conditions.

I guess it's good then that these laws don't only work under ideal conditions.

Otherwise it's the person who made the effort to get drunk who is really responsible for what happens.

Clearly they aren't the only ones responsible, as the topic of this thread proves.

The law does not make something right, or make it wrong. The law is not morality. Slavery was legal once, that didn't make it right. It's relatively easy to get people to take part in reactionary efforts, such as passing a law that ostensibly improves public safety. All I'm saying is if that law ignores reality then it's bullshit, it's not right, and serves no purpose other than satisfying some people's need to 'do something' about a problem. It's still the law, still enforceable, but it's not right.

Laws about drinking ages make sense because it's clear what a bartender is expected to do- verify the age by looking at whatever ID the customer can produce. I think stuff like "I can tell when someone is drunk" is basically hocus pocus, it's buying in to the idea that certain people have these magical abilities to see or sense things us mere mortals can't. I don't think law should be based on that sort of thing. An experienced bartender taking a look at someone and judging their intoxication level is just making an educated guess, with the emphasis on guess.

But the laws and their enforcement take this into account. I don't believe these are strict liability laws where if you serve someone who is intoxicated you are guilty, regardless of whether you had reason to know or not. Most laws are not like that. Depending on how the particular statute is worded, the state would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the server knew that the patron was intoxicated. That's why this kind of law is effectively self limiting to egregious cases.

[GreenGoo]

Only once ever did a server refuse to take my order, and it was more out of spite than anything.

How many times do you feel you should have been cut off but weren't? It's a rhetorical question.

As for enforcement, I have no idea. I've never been privvy to it enforced. ILB suggests that, surprise surprise, it's not a rigid enforcement and judgement is used. Obviously where judgement is exercised humans are fallible and mistakes are gonna happen. We as a society know this and make laws anyway.

I don't know how to respond to the rest of your anecdote. If a server cuts you off and you think it's unfair, you can speak with a manager or go elsewhere. People are dicks to each other all the time. Servers aren't magical creatures devoid of dickishness.

I'm not going to question your story. I've seen much worse from both customers and servers. I guess my question is, so what?

Frankly if she was really spiteful she would have passed the word around to the other servers and no one would have served you. That's standard procedure. What it seems to me is that she felt you were a rude asshole and decided to use her prerogative not to serve you. More like "I'm not dealing with this guy". As I said, if she really wanted to fuck you over, she would have made sure no one served you, including the manager. If it was a bar and she was really spiteful she could just have had you ejected by a bouncer.

So, it makes a good story, I guess, but in the end a server is liable for your actions if they over serve you. If that means they deny you a drink that you think you deserve, well, that's too bad. They could do that (and did) without liability laws in place.

Edit: To be clear I'm not saying you were an asshole, only that she may have decided you were. Or a thousand other reasons she decided that she would not be serving you, but also decided not to inform the rest of the staff and cut you off completely as is standard protocol.