Comments on: ATTENTION Drastic Changes to Bar Owner Liability http://crywithme.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/attention-drastic-changes-to-bar-owner-liability/ An attempt to help me understand my homework, and help my friends and family understand what it takes to PASS LAW SCHOOL! Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:03:09 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: crywithme http://crywithme.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/attention-drastic-changes-to-bar-owner-liability/#comment-276 crywithme Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:03:09 +0000 http://crywithme.wordpress.com/?p=136#comment-276 Fair assessment...I wrote this during my first year Torts class. :) I think your comment is great, it made me revisit the issue. I had forgotten all about this post. I wrote this because one of my few regular readers (a friend) had recently opened a brewery in Southern California. http://www.hangar24brewery.com/ I was trying to be helpful and keep him abreast of current legal news. Consider my pathetic attempt to shift blame on my inexperience above as a parry. Now prepare for my riposte! ;) My understanding is the "common law" is law created by judges in courts as opposed to law created by statute. You are correct in asserting that the original common law was bar owners had no liability to those injured by drunk customers it had overserved. Although Courts have in the past extended other forms of common law liability to overserving patrons, such as negligent supervision. During the temperance movement, statutes were enacted called dram shop acts which extended negligence liability to distributers of alcohol for the damaged caused by patrons it had overserved. The Supreme Court in Eiger v. Garrity (1918) 246 U.S. 97 held dram shop acts did not violate due process, and were valid. Later states started enacting (california included) laws which prohibited suits against bar owners, bar tenders, etc, if one of their patrons got drunk and hurt someone. States like california were attempting to protect bar owners by holding liable only the person drinking the alcohol. The decision in the case above, which I will admit I havent followed up on since I posted this, actually extends liability past what had been codified by the state of New Jersey. Although the court bases its decision off of a statute, the effect is actually court created liability. This in my mind has the making of new common law. If this trend continues the possible effect is courts extending liability past what has been codified. In the case above the court found that not only does a bar have a duty to a patron it serves, but also to a patron it does not serve, if that patron looks drunk. The signifigance for bar owners is potentially huge. If someone were to "Bar Hop" with friends, get drunk in another bar, and display that drunkness in your bar, the very display of drunkeness in your bar creates a duty between you and that person. Even if you did not participate in that person getting drunk. Upon reading my post again I can see where I screwed up interpreting the case, and you were mislead. However I think you downplay the "increased liability and higher duty" as nothing new. The case stands for not only stopping drunks from driving who you serve, but for stopping drunks from driving who you didn't serve. Their might be a reasonable rationale for holding a bartender responsible for the drunk he served, but surely that rationale becomes unreasonable when you extend it to the drunk he did not serve. Please feel free to retort. Comments like this give me a new found interest in a blog I had lost almost all interest in maintaining. Fair assessment…I wrote this during my first year Torts class.

:)

I think your comment is great, it made me revisit the issue. I had forgotten all about this post.

I wrote this because one of my few regular readers (a friend) had recently opened a brewery in Southern California.

http://www.hangar24brewery.com/

I was trying to be helpful and keep him abreast of current legal news.

Consider my pathetic attempt to shift blame on my inexperience above as a parry. Now prepare for my riposte! ;)

My understanding is the “common law” is law created by judges in courts as opposed to law created by statute. You are correct in asserting that the original common law was bar owners had no liability to those injured by drunk customers it had overserved. Although Courts have in the past extended other forms of common law liability to overserving patrons, such as negligent supervision.

During the temperance movement, statutes were enacted called dram shop acts which extended negligence liability to distributers of alcohol for the damaged caused by patrons it had overserved.

The Supreme Court in Eiger v. Garrity (1918) 246 U.S. 97 held dram shop acts did not violate due process, and were valid.

Later states started enacting (california included) laws which prohibited suits against bar owners, bar tenders, etc, if one of their patrons got drunk and hurt someone. States like california were attempting to protect bar owners by holding liable only the person drinking the alcohol.

The decision in the case above, which I will admit I havent followed up on since I posted this, actually extends liability past what had been codified by the state of New Jersey.

Although the court bases its decision off of a statute, the effect is actually court created liability. This in my mind has the making of new common law. If this trend continues the possible effect is courts extending liability past what has been codified.

In the case above the court found that not only does a bar have a duty to a patron it serves, but also to a patron it does not serve, if that patron looks drunk. The signifigance for bar owners is potentially huge. If someone were to “Bar Hop” with friends, get drunk in another bar, and display that drunkness in your bar, the very display of drunkeness in your bar creates a duty between you and that person. Even if you did not participate in that person getting drunk.

Upon reading my post again I can see where I screwed up interpreting the case, and you were mislead. However I think you downplay the “increased liability and higher duty” as nothing new. The case stands for not only stopping drunks from driving who you serve, but for stopping drunks from driving who you didn’t serve.

Their might be a reasonable rationale for holding a bartender responsible for the drunk he served, but surely that rationale becomes unreasonable when you extend it to the drunk he did not serve.

Please feel free to retort. Comments like this give me a new found interest in a blog I had lost almost all interest in maintaining.

]]> By: Anonymous http://crywithme.wordpress.com/2008/03/26/attention-drastic-changes-to-bar-owner-liability/#comment-275 Anonymous Sun, 22 Feb 2009 15:10:08 +0000 http://crywithme.wordpress.com/?p=136#comment-275 I am totally lost by your comments here. Dram Shop Laws have existed for an awfully long time and they differ by state. The California Statute has nothing to do with anything. Common law is simple... no liability to those who serve alcohol. California did not start that with a statute. A statute is not common law its codified law. States have made case decisions and the legislature codified it state by state. Some states impose liability others do not. For instance, Nevada has no statute. Illinois has a detailed one. Some states require "knowingly" serving an intoxicated person others say liability will attach only if the person was known to be a "habitual alcoholic." There is a boat load of case authority on liquor liability. Depending upon what state you're in a bar owner could absolutely be liable to a third party who was injured. MA held someone liable in 1981. The law is obviously still evolving, but I stongly disagree with your statement here suggesting this is something new. The only thing that is new is increased liability and a higher duty....from not over serving to physically having to stop someone from driving. Furthermore, Floridians or citizens of Kansas are not under any obligation to conform to a California statute unless they are in California. As far as the courts go, a California statute is nothing more than secondary authority to weigh making a decision in another state. No states court system need abide by California's statute. What year of law school were you in when you wrote this. I am NO expert, but I was under the impression this was law 101. I stumbled across your blog while researching. I know this was written a year ago, but its poor information for those who do not understand the law. Maybe I am mistaking your words, but if so, its not clear enough what you mean. If you actually try this out and get hit by a car...do it in a state with a strict statute. I suggest MA, NJ or IL. I am totally lost by your comments here. Dram Shop Laws have existed for an awfully long time and they differ by state. The California Statute has nothing to do with anything. Common law is simple… no liability to those who serve alcohol. California did not start that with a statute. A statute is not common law its codified law. States have made case decisions and the legislature codified it state by state. Some states impose liability others do not. For instance, Nevada has no statute. Illinois has a detailed one. Some states require “knowingly” serving an intoxicated person others say liability will attach only if the person was known to be a “habitual alcoholic.” There is a boat load of case authority on liquor liability. Depending upon what state you’re in a bar owner could absolutely be liable to a third party who was injured. MA held someone liable in 1981. The law is obviously still evolving, but I stongly disagree with your statement here suggesting this is something new. The only thing that is new is increased liability and a higher duty….from not over serving to physically having to stop someone from driving. Furthermore, Floridians or citizens of Kansas are not under any obligation to conform to a California statute unless they are in California. As far as the courts go, a California statute is nothing more than secondary authority to weigh making a decision in another state. No states court system need abide by California’s statute. What year of law school were you in when you wrote this. I am NO expert, but I was under the impression this was law 101. I stumbled across your blog while researching. I know this was written a year ago, but its poor information for those who do not understand the law. Maybe I am mistaking your words, but if so, its not clear enough what you mean. If you actually try this out and get hit by a car…do it in a state with a strict statute. I suggest MA, NJ or IL.

]]>