I just don’t understand drinking and driving

I sound like I'm all for the driver, which I'm not. I don't know enough.

The only thing we know for sure is Thom was at the bar from 8:00 until 2AM, 6 hours at the bar. Alibi is known for their long pours.

and the crazy thing is he lives just five blocks from the bar!

The popular club in town is Georgie’s Alibi. The guys complain because the police park out front waiting for someone to get in their car and drive. Sometimes a police officer will be standing in the parking lot watching.

In general, when people are killed or injured due to a drunk driver, aside from the driver's responsibility for the crash, the establishment where the person was drinking before the accident may also be held accountable.

However, in order to receive compensation for the fatality or the injuries caused by the accident, it must first be proven that the person who was serving the alcohol knew that the driver was intoxicated but continued to serve them anyways, and that intoxication was the cause of the crash
http://www.clevelandwrongfuldeathattorneys.com/2011/04/establishment-held-responsible-for-drunk-driving-crash.shtml

Alcohol Liability in Florida - Dram Shop Laws Need to be Stricter to Help Keep Drunk Drivers Off Our Highways

Every year in Florida, there are somewhere between 1,200 and 1,500 alcohol related accidents. Almost all of these accidents involve a driver who is over the legal limit (.08% BAC or Blood Alcohol Content). When drivers get behind the wheel after having too much to drink, they put everyone on the road at risk.

But what about those people who provided the alcohol to someone they already knew was drunk and knew had to drive home? Aren’t they somehow responsible for the injuries caused by the drunk driver?

In Florida, the answer is “not often.”

Florida statute § 768.125 states that individuals or companies who sell or serve alcohol are not liable for injuries or damages caused by the drunk driver except in two situations.

If the drunk driver was under the age of 21, the individual who served the alcohol can be held liable for the damages. The statute does not contain any knowledge requirement, presumably because the serving party has a duty to ensure that everyone they sell or provide alcohol to is of legal age to consume it.

The second exception is that parties who serve a person who they know is “habitually addicted to the use of any or all alcoholic beverages” may be liable for injury and damages caused as a result of the intoxication. In these cases, the courts have held that there is an obvious foreseeable risk of injury when you provide alcohol to persons who lack the ability to make responsible decisions in the consumption of alcohol. Coker v. Wal-Mart Stores, 642 So. 2d 744 (Fla. 1994).

But Florida’s laws are not as strict on restaurants and bars as they should be. The application of this law allows a restaurant or bar to serve alcohol to customers even after the customer is intoxicated as long as they bartender does not have knowledge that the customer is “habitually addicted” to alcohol. This was true in 1995 case where a fraternal lodge was held not liable for the death of a man killed in a car crash by a driver who was routinely served 3-7 drinks when he visited the lodge. Russo v. Plant City Moose Lodge, 656 So. 2d 957 (Fla. App. 1995).

Florida should follow the lead of other states and enact stricter dram shop laws to hold bars and restaurants accountable for over-serving any patron who will leave the premises and get behind the wheel of a car. These drivers pose a danger to every other driver on the road and the bars are profiting from their over-consumption. It is time that those bars share in some of the responsibility for keeping drunk drivers off Florida’s highways.
http://www.injurylawservice.com/library/alcohol-liability-in-florida.cfm

Alibi probably should re-consider their policy about serving drinks to people who are already intoxicated and about to get into a car after tragic accidents like this one. Bars have been held criminally liable for DUI accidents in some states under Dram Shop laws.

In general, when people are killed or injured due to a drunk driver, aside from the driver's responsibility for the crash, the establishment where the person was drinking before the accident may also be held accountable.

However, in order to receive compensation for the fatality or the injuries caused by the accident, it must first be proven that the person who was serving the alcohol knew that the driver was intoxicated but continued to serve them anyways, and that intoxication was the cause of the crash
http://www.clevelandwrongfuldeathattorneys.com/2011/04/establishment-held-responsible-for-drunk-driving-crash.shtml

This ruling was in New Jersey.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/03/court_restaurants_bars_liable.html

Really? Which States?
I was under the impression that Dram Shop liability arose in tort,
not in criminal liability; maybe things have changed.

Call for help? Not everyone has a paid up cell phone.

So, you scream for help, or run to the nearest house or store. You don't go home and leave someone dying in the street when you've just hit them with your car.

Somehow, I think if you're driving a 2010 Acura, you're likely to have some kind of cell phone.

Quote:

I sound like I'm all for the driver, which I'm not. I don't know enough.

The only thing we know for sure is Thom was at the bar from 8:00 until 2AM, 6 hours at the bar. Alibi is known for their long pours.

Does the statute require him to carry a telefone with him??

That is likely to be a problem, as they had full ability to know how much he had drunk before they poured the last drink(s). They are better off on the civil side because it was a bum who was killed and not an upstanding citizen, but it is unlikely that they can stay in business.

You really are unable to understand laws, regardless of the subject of the law, and you demonstrate that continually.

firefly wrote:

You really are unable to understand laws, regardless of the subject of the law, and you demonstrate that continually.

Understanding isn't really Hawkeye's thing.

Does the statute require him to carry a telefone with him??

No, but the state of Florida requires you to stop and attempt to render medical assistance,
or obtain medical assistance, for an injured victim.

According to the police press release, the man admits he didn't stop, David. He kept on going. If he admitted he didn't stop,
he clearly violated the law and I can't see how his behavior would be excusable.

Under Florida dram shop laws, which I just recently posted, they would not likely be held liable--Florida's laws in this regard are comparatively lax. It is likely their ability to remain in business won't be threatened.

Nor is anything that even vaguely resembles compassion. Did you notice his reference to the victim as "a bum"? We know this...how? Because he was homeless, therefore he was a "bum"? That word carries a connotation far beyond mere "homelessness."

Re: Lustig Andrei (Post 4836912)

Lustig Andrei wrote:

Nor is anything that even vaguely resembles compassion. Did you notice his reference to the victim as "a bum"? We know this...how? Because he was homeless, therefore he was a "bum"? That word carries a connotation far beyond mere "homelessness."


It puts his protests against elitism, and claims about being a Socialist into context. He is just a dilettante.

I did notice that as well. We don’t know what circumstances make someone become homeless and that certainly doesn’t make them a bum.