This is ABSOLUTELY NUTS!

[JeepMonkey]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/03/04/bc.fbn.beervendorsued.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

With logic like this it's no wonder that our judicial system is so jacked! The company that sold the beer pays 105 million and the drunk who hit the girl spends maybe a few years in jail and his insurance pay 200K. That makes no sense. :evil:

 

[TwistedCU]

RE: Re: RE: Beans or no beans in Chilli?

Hmmm, not letting people make their own decisions now is a liability. Nice. :roll:

 

[Sparky-Watts]

RE: Re: RE: Beans or no beans in Chilli?

Good Lord.....why didn't they sue the auto maker, too. And the tire company. And the people that made the cups the beer was in......this is just getting out of hand. Aramark didn't force him to drink the beer, nor did they force him to get in the car drunk. There is a case in Hutchinson (just up the road from me) now about something similar, only the bar owner is being sued for the death of a patron from alcohol poisoning. The story on that is here: http://e-news.hutchnews.com/past/thursday/local2.taf

 

[Junkpile]

This is, of course, totally stupid. I think the biggest blame for stuff like this belongs to the bleeding heart jurors and judge who gave that BS award. They threw the spirit of the justice system out the window and abused their power to help themselves sleep better at night. They saw a crippled little girl who will need money and then reached in the deepest pocket they could find. I don't blame them for having feelings or trying to help the little girl, but it is clearly an unjust judgement and award and it only opens the door for more of this.


On another level.....I say GOOD. If we are going to throw this stupid way of thinking and unjust legislation at one group of drug dealers, then all drug dealers should be subject to it everytime some do-gooder wants to feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves.

 

[JeepMonkey]

This is just one more reason (of my many) that if I ever won the lottery I would by an island somewhere and become a total reclusive. I don't think society as a whole has much to offer anymore.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

RE: safari bikini,duster,deck cover

This is just one more reason (of my many) that if I ever won the lottery I would by an island somewhere and become a total reclusive. I don't think society as a whole has much to offer anymore.

I feel that way from time to time, then I remember how much this forum has to offer.....I guess I could get satellite internet on my little island, but depending on the size, I'd need plenty of room to go Jeeping, too.......

 

[judge09]

RE: Re: RE: Heard of this Winch?

The lawyers always go for the deepest pockets in alot of ways its really sad. On the other hand, if you are going to sell alcohol (we all know the risks of drinking) you have the responsibility of cutting off people who are drunk. If you are enabling a drunk person to get more drunk you are acting irresponsible and are liable. $105million liable of course not. But its law suits like this that get stadiums to set rules on drinking for all the adult children who cant control themselves and I welcome it.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Re: RE: safari bikini,duster,deck cover

I don't buy the part about being responsible for someone else's drinking. Aramark didn't hold the guy down and pour the beer down his throat, nor did they force him to drive away drunk. It's time people started taking responsibility for their own actions and quit trying to lay the blame on others! Bartenders are not responsible for people who get drunk and drive! Sure, the law may think so, but in reality, they are not. They offer a service, and if someone overindulges in that service, that is the patron's fault, not the fault of the bar tender. By that logic, if bartenders are responsible, then liquor stores should be held responsible also. Just because a person gets drunk at a bar, doesn't mean that they couldn't just as easily get drunk at home and go out and have an accident, too. Is the guy behind the counter at WalMart an accomplice to murder because he sold me the bullets I used to go out and shoot an irresponsible drunk? By rights, it's the same concept. He supplied the item that facilitated the death of another person, so: bartender is to drunk driver as WalMart employee is to murderer.

Heard on the news tonight that "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is now being used as a scapegoat in the murder of 3 cops by a teenager.....where does it end?

 

[judge09]

I don't buy the part about being responsible for someone else's drinking. Aramark didn't hold the guy down and pour the beer down his throat, nor did they force him to drive away drunk. It's time people started taking responsibility for their own actions and quit trying to lay the blame on others! Bartenders are not responsible for people who get drunk and drive! Sure, the law may think so, but in reality, they are not. They offer a service, and if someone overindulges in that service, that is the patron's fault, not the fault of the bar tender. By that logic, if bartenders are responsible, then liquor stores should be held responsible also. Just because a person gets drunk at a bar, doesn't mean that they couldn't just as easily get drunk at home and go out and have an accident, too. Is the guy behind the counter at WalMart an accomplice to murder because he sold me the bullets I used to go out and shoot an irresponsible drunk? By rights, it's the same concept. He supplied the item that facilitated the death of another person, so: bartender is to drunk driver as WalMart employee is to murderer.

Heard on the news tonight that "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is now being used as a scapegoat in the murder of 3 cops by a teenager.....where does it end?

I dont think the all or none mentality is the right way to go on this. Sure if the liquor stores see someone stagger into their store wasted to buy some more alcohol they should turn them away any thing else is just irresponsible on the stores part. The same goes for the guy at Walmart, if I am walking up the store counter mumbling about going over to someones house to shoot them then hell yeah the store clerk has the responsibility to not sell that person any bullets. As much as the person who is doing the buying has a responsibility to act appropriately any store who sells something dangerous has a responsibility to do as much as they can to make sure, as best they can, that those dangerous things are not sold to people who you can easily tell will miss use them.

All that being said, I dont think that slapping the biggest pocket with a $105million law suit is the appropriate thing to do. Instead the liquor concession company's penalty should be making them spend $x on training their concession workers on the best ways to identify drunk people and cut them off and trying to educate their consumers on the dangers of drunk driving. I hope noone ever has to deal with the loss of a family member or friend do to drunk driving. It is horrible, one of the losses in life that can and should be prevented. The bottom line is everyone in this world isnt as level headed as you and I may be and if the "Beer company" has to spend a couple extra bucks to try to prevent those immature, idiotic, and dangerous people who consume THEIR product from endangering the rest of us then so be it.

 

[graewulf]

RE: Wont start unless i hit the gas....

Another way to solve the problem.... stop selling beer at public events.. and make it illegal to bring your own... Everyone that attends has to ride in some vehicle, so you are guaranteed some drunk drivers as a result from every event. If you want to drink, stay home or call a cab...

 

[southtj]

Another way to solve the problem.... stop selling beer at public events.. and make it illegal to bring your own... Everyone that attends has to ride in some vehicle, so you are guaranteed some drunk drivers as a result from every event. If you want to drink, stay home or call a cab...

That's not going to happen. I see nothing wrong with an adult having a FEW beers at a sporting event. Everyone knows their limit and should be able to control yourself. But as we all know, that doesn't happen.

One easy way to solve this is to set up random sobriety checkpoints outside the stadium. Publicize it in the paper and maybe even on the scoreboard. It will make those that are driving think twice about how many drinks they have. In Memphis they do this occasionally, not at games but all around the city. If you read the paper everyday, they always tell where they are going to be. Not everyone sees it though and plenty get busted for DUI.

 

[JeepMonkey]

Heard on the news tonight that "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is now being used as a scapegoat in the murder of 3 cops by a teenager.....where does it end?

I don't believe that they should hold the video games totally responsible for this. For the most part it should be the parents and the values they instilled in their children that are to blame here. I've seen commercials for that game on t.v. and every time I see it I'm almost disgusted. I think it really sends the wrong message to kids. That message being "it's no big deal to steal a car and kill people to get away with". I for one will never let my children play those games, if any at all. I grew up playing Frogger and Pac-Man and it never gave me the idea to kill someone. Society is truly going to hell I think. One day not too long from now I think the earth is just going to implode.

Sorry....didn't mean to get off on a rant. :shock:

 

[judge09]

Another way to solve the problem.... stop selling beer at public events.. and make it illegal to bring your own... Everyone that attends has to ride in some vehicle, so you are guaranteed some drunk drivers as a result from every event. If you want to drink, stay home or call a cab...

Quite a few college stadiums dont serve alcohol. I think thats a great option. I dont buy beer at the stadium anyways. I cant justify spending $5 on a 12oz bud.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

One easy way to solve this is to set up random sobriety checkpoints outside the stadium. Publicize it in the paper and maybe even on the scoreboard. It will make those that are driving think twice about how many drinks they have. In Memphis they do this occasionally, not at games but all around the city. If you read the paper everyday, they always tell where they are going to be. Not everyone sees it though and plenty get busted for DUI.

Ahh, but the problem with that is that it is entrapment. That's why cops can't sit across the street from a bar and stop every car that leaves, because bar owners and patrons took advantage of the legal system and sued.....

 

[Sparky-Watts]

As much as the person who is doing the buying has a responsibility to act appropriately any store who sells something dangerous has a responsibility to do as much as they can to make sure, as best they can, that those dangerous things are not sold to people who you can easily tell will miss use them.

But, it's not that cut and dried. For example, the recent arrest of a serial killer in Wichita. The man lived a normal life with a wife and kids, held a job with local government, was president of his church, and in general a respectable member of the community. How would the clerk at WalMart know if he was going out to murder someone. You can't sue for the person who was muttering about killing his neighbor if you can't sue for the one that wasn't. If the guy at the ball game hadn't been obviously drunk yet still injured or killed someone on the road afterwards, is the vendor still responsible, and if so, why? If not, why? Doesn't make any difference if the guy is obviously drunk or not, he still killed someone, right?

All that being said, I dont think that slapping the biggest pocket with a $105million law suit is the appropriate thing to do. Instead the liquor concession company's penalty should be making them spend $x on training their concession workers on the best ways to identify drunk people and cut them off and trying to educate their consumers on the dangers of drunk driving. I hope noone ever has to deal with the loss of a family member or friend do to drunk driving. It is horrible, one of the losses in life that can and should be prevented. The bottom line is everyone in this world isnt as level headed as you and I may be and if the "Beer company" has to spend a couple extra bucks to try to prevent those immature, idiotic, and dangerous people who consume THEIR product from endangering the rest of us then so be it.

That's a very good point, and in fact, if you'll notice, all liquor companies that do any type of advertising already promote responsible drinking as required by federal law. Doesn't stop it from happening, though, does it? The bottom line is, we're a species with free will, and unfortunately we often exercise that free will at the expense of others. This guy's free will told him to drink and drive, despite any amount of knowledge he had of the dangers involved. Therefore, he's solely responsible for the damages caused.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

Door Removal

Heard on the news tonight that "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" is now being used as a scapegoat in the murder of 3 cops by a teenager.....where does it end?

I don't believe that they should hold the video games totally responsible for this. For the most part it should be the parents and the values they instilled in their children that are to blame here. I've seen commercials for that game on t.v. and every time I see it I'm almost disgusted. I think it really sends the wrong message to kids. That message being "it's no big deal to steal a car and kill people to get away with". I for one will never let my children play those games, if any at all. I grew up playing Frogger and Pac-Man and it never gave me the idea to kill someone. Society is truly going to hell I think. One day not too long from now I think the earth is just going to implode.

Sorry....didn't mean to get off on a rant. :shock:

Yeah, but I grew up watching westerns and other shows where there was at least one person killed per episode, I played with toy guns, and pretended to shoot my friends as we played, yet still I don't have any desire to go out and commit murder. Why? Because despite the amount of violence and death I see on TV, in the movies, in video games, and yes, even in the Bible, I know it is wrong. And you can't tell me this kid didn't know the difference between right and wrong. He just didn't care. Most likely, he'd have killed someone whether he'd played video games or not. Society has got to stop finding scapegoats for their own faults! You can shelter your kids all you want from the violence and death around them, but if they're of the mindset to do harm, they will......no amount of Disney movies or "family friendly" programming will ever stop that. What did they blame murders and violence on before the invention of movies and video games? Murder is the oldest crime on record.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people....same thing goes for video games and beer vendors.

 

[LadyJeepFreak]

This is just one more reason (of my many) that if I ever won the lottery I would by an island somewhere and become a total reclusive. I don't think society as a whole has much to offer anymore.

I feel that way from time to time, then I remember how much this forum has to offer.....I guess I could get satellite internet on my little island, but depending on the size, I'd need plenty of room to go Jeeping, too.......

lol I have posted this once before in a debate and cannot agree more.

Lady

 

[TwistedCU]

Another way to solve the problem.... stop selling beer at public events.. and make it illegal to bring your own... Everyone that attends has to ride in some vehicle, so you are guaranteed some drunk drivers as a result from every event. If you want to drink, stay home or call a cab...

:shock:

Yee-eeee-eeeah... more laws... that's what we need!

I shouldn't be denied being able to have a beer at a ballgame or even two because some jackasses won't control themselves. If I'm there without any of the kids you bet your tail I wanna enjoy a cold Bass Ale with my Italian sausage smothered with peppers and onions from Boog Powell's open pit stand on Eutaw St inside Oriole Park at Camden Yards. If any of the kids are there it Molson Excel (a non-alchololic O'Douls type brew from Molson).

Making it illegal will only affect responsible people by taking away the things they enjoy. The people who want to pound down beer all day long will just show up already drunk, and/or they will find ways to sneak it in.

That is the type of mentality that is slowly changing our free society into a socialist state, and it really, really scares me.

It is illegal to drink and drive. Instead of new laws, hows abouts just making the ones we have tougher or better yet - how about the courts backing up Police officers by actually punishing offenders that get arrested instead of granting PBJ's to everyone so they can come back in 6 months with an even uglier tragedy.

This can be said for most of the problems we are facing in today's society.

 

[Sparky-Watts]

RE: Will someone PLEASE buy me this??

Well put, TC. Some guy gets a DUI, and since it's his first offense, he can "buy" a diversion, so that he keeps his license and keeps driving. Ooops, got popped again, so this time he spends 48 hours in jail, bonds out, loses his license, pays a relatively small fine.....but keeps driving anyway, because, by gosh, his car still starts even though he doesn't have a license!!! What a hoot! So, he goes out, get plastered again.....back in court, pays another fine, spends 5 days in jail, gets community service and still no license. I'll be darned, even probation and a stern slap on the wrists won't keep that car from starting. So, to celebrate his recent return to society, he gets smashed, kills a whole family, and winds up in jail again. With a good lawyer, he pays a slightly higher fine, gets sentenced to 5 years for vehicular homicide. Out in 18 months because of good behavior, only to start the car again......Ain't our justice system grand? That's one of the biggest problems with the system now, is that the toughest thing they can throw at them right off the bat is losing their license....big deal. I can't remember the figures exactly, but recently the Wichita Eagle ran a story about unlicensed drivers in the city, somewhere around 15% of all the drivers have either had their licenses suspended or never had one in the first place. They need to toughen up the laws on DUI. Something like 85% (still can't remember exact figures, but that's close) of all DUI offenders are repeat offenders. There were just over 100 drivers in Wichita that had more than 5 DUI convictions that were still driving!!!! Do the math, 100 out of 400,000 population in Wichita alone. One out of every 4000 drivers on the road in Wichita has had over 5 DUI convictions?!? I can't remember how many of them had two or more, but it was a butt load. There is a serious flaw in the DUI laws, no doubt.

 

[judge09]

I knew a dumb-a$$ in college know was on his 4th DUI pending. Appartently he was able to rack up 4 of them within a couple months before any went to court. I still stand by the need for alternative programs to educate not lawsuits.