I can understand the fact that yes, a nightclub is supposed to stop serving when someone is over intoxicated but as for the passenger & drivers parents suing them is ridiculous. Is it not your own responsibility to know better then to get into a car with someone who is “obviously” intoxicated as it states above. Or to not allow that person to drive. In my opinion they should be held just as responsible as the nightclub & redbull.
So Davies argument appears to be that Espinoza was “obviously drunk” so therefore the club should have stopped serving her drinks but, at the same time, she wasn’t “obviously drunk” so therefore, it was completely reasonable for Davies to voluntarily get into the car knowing Espinoza would be driving.
The Dramm Shop law has good intent, but charging the bar with the responsibility to make a subjective judgement on the “appearance” of someone is unfair. Maybe she wasn’t the one buying the drinks so the bartender wouldn’t observe her. Maybe she was a “veteran” drinker who wouldn’t show signs of being impaired. We need to stop making excues for people’s failure to accept individual responsibility for their actions. Each individual is primarily responsible how much they drink. When they get loaded, it’s their negligence, not the establishments. Unfortunately, most individuals lack the assets or liability limits to cover their stupidity so voila……introduce the “deep pockets” of the establishment with the Dramm Shop Act. Now the lawyers can still make big bucks. Great legal system.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
I can understand the fact that yes, a nightclub is supposed to stop serving when someone is over intoxicated but as for the passenger & drivers parents suing them is ridiculous. Is it not your own responsibility to know better then to get into a car with someone who is “obviously” intoxicated as it states above. Or to not allow that person to drive. In my opinion they should be held just as responsible as the nightclub & redbull.
So Davies argument appears to be that Espinoza was “obviously drunk” so therefore the club should have stopped serving her drinks but, at the same time, she wasn’t “obviously drunk” so therefore, it was completely reasonable for Davies to voluntarily get into the car knowing Espinoza would be driving.
Interesting argument.
Seems to me that Red Bull didn’t serve her anything. Wonder who he would sue if it was some kind of generic juice used as a mixer?
The Dramm Shop law has good intent, but charging the bar with the responsibility to make a subjective judgement on the “appearance” of someone is unfair. Maybe she wasn’t the one buying the drinks so the bartender wouldn’t observe her. Maybe she was a “veteran” drinker who wouldn’t show signs of being impaired. We need to stop making excues for people’s failure to accept individual responsibility for their actions. Each individual is primarily responsible how much they drink. When they get loaded, it’s their negligence, not the establishments. Unfortunately, most individuals lack the assets or liability limits to cover their stupidity so voila……introduce the “deep pockets” of the establishment with the Dramm Shop Act. Now the lawyers can still make big bucks. Great legal system.