Do the people suing ever win?

you know, when some drunk s.o.b. gets filled up to the gills, then drives over a half dozen kindergarten kids .

and someone decides that it is the bars / bartenders fault .

This message has been edited. Last edited by: bendable,

I don't know if they win, but I know that it happens regularly.

IANAL

There is this little thing called the Dram Shop Law/Rule in some 38 states which can make an establishment liable.

Generally there are a lot of variables that make it rather hard to make charges stick, and it's usually a personal injury lawsuit vs a criminal charge.

I have some friends that own bars, and they are meticulous when it comes to "documenting and mitigating" people that they think pose a problem. They regularly offer cab rides and are pretty damn careful to make a note when someone refuses one... I don't believe they have ever lost in court.

Is this any different than a gun or ammo manufacturer being held liable for someone misusing one of their products?

quote:

Originally posted by cmr076:
Is this any different than a gun or ammo manufacturer being held liable for someone misusing one of their products?

I would say yes, it's a service vs a product kind of, but I'm sure an actual lawyer will be along shortly.

Lawyers figured out that most idiots who get DUI's don't have any money so if the bar/booze mfg who do have money can be held liable then theyz can gets PAYD!!

quote:

Originally posted by Ryanp225:
Lawyers figured out that most idiots who get DUI's don't have any money so if the bar/booze mfg who do have money can be held liable then theyz can gets PAYD!!

While that may be true, I haven't seen it happen very often, at least around here.

suites? with bars?
Sweet!

In Missouri....
Missouri Revised Statutes
Chapter 537

Sale of alcoholic beverage may be proximate cause of personal injuries or death--requirements--(dram shop law).

537.053. 1. Since the repeal of the Missouri Dram Shop Act in 1934 (Laws of 1933-34, extra session, page 77), it has been and continues to be the policy of this state to follow the common law of England, as declared in section 1.010, to prohibit dram shop liability and to follow the common law rule that furnishing alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons.

2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.

3. For purposes of this section, a person is "visibly intoxicated" when inebriated to such an extent that the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction. A person's blood alcohol content does not constitute prima facie evidence to establish that a person is visibly intoxicated within the meaning of this section, but may be admissible as relevant evidence of the person's intoxication.

4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to provide a right of recovery to a person who suffers injury or death proximately caused by the person's voluntary intoxication unless the person is under the age of twenty-one years. No person over the age of twenty-one years or their dependents, personal representative, and heirs may assert a claim for damages for personal injury or death against a seller of intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises arising out of the person's voluntary intoxication.

5. In an action brought pursuant to subsection 2 of this section alleging the sale of intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises to a person under the age of twenty-one years, proof that the seller or the seller's agent or employee demanded and was shown a driver's license or official state or federal personal identification card, appearing to be genuine and showing that the minor was at least twenty-one years of age, shall be relevant in determining the relative fault of the seller or seller's agent or employee in the action.

6. No employer may discharge his or her employee for refusing service to a visibly intoxicated person.

http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatu...tml/53700000531.HTML

^^^ That's about as clear as mud.

Don't sell liquor to anyone under the age of twenty-one years or to anyone visibly intoxicated.

no one has heard of winning a case in court?
I wonder if anyone even settles ? out of court

Yes, they win sometimes. Sometimes they loose.

They settle more often. Because in ALL cases, settlement is far more common than trials. Like 95% settle. And it is the insurer driving the settlement/trial decision. Insurers are conservative. They like certainty.

I've been involved in one dram shop case.