Should Bars/Bartenders be Held Liable for their Customers' Behaivors as a Result of being Over-served?

Doesn't some blame lay on the bartender who continues to serve an obviously-intoxicated customer? After all, the customer can't continue to drink in public unless someone is giving him something to drink.

Define "obviously intoxicated." Look, it is in most bar owners' best interests for their bartenders to stop serving people who are out of control-- less muss, less fuss, no risk of someone falling down, cracking their head on the floor and dying in the establishment. But making the bar owner responsible for the choice that the drinker makes to 1) begin drinking, 2) continue drinking until drunk, and 3) decide to do something that endangers other people is patently stupid if for no other reason than that it makes the bar owner responsible for being a policeman and judge. What are the legal guidelines? What tools do we give them for ascertaining the drunkenness of their patrons? What exceptions are available to them when confronted by people who purposefully try to slip by these restrictions?

Until you come up with a foolproof test for determining a patron's level of intoxication and deputize the bar staff to act in the capacity of law enforcement, the burden should rest exactly where it ideally and morally belongs-- on the person who is doing the buying of and drinking of the alcohol.

I'd like to see that as well. Being drunk, unless someone held you down and poured alcohol down your throat (against your will, mind you), should be no excuse. If you lose control of your actions by your own choice, you need to be held responsible anyway.

Would this mean that someone DWI who hit and killed a pedestrian would be guilty of first degree murder? Nah, that's ridiculous. However, you could extend the claim that their actions were more likely, as known about beforehand, to cause harm to someone (specific person unknown) than, say, someone who was distracted and did the same thing. They should therefore receive a stiffer sentence.

Someone has to be responsible.

I'm not suggesting that every time someone drives drunk that we go searching for a bartender to blame, nor am I suggesting that we don't hold the driver himself to blame (as I said above). What I'm saying is that if someone was obviously drunk (i.e., falling over himself, very slurred speech, etc.), and there are witnesses to that, then the bartender is responsible for contributing to that. If the bartender couldn't tell the guy was drunk, then of course he isn't responsible. He can only be responsible for a conscious act to serve someone who has already had too much.

I'm not trying to blame bartenders for every drunk driver. There has to be some line, though, and I'm pretty sure that in many states there are already regulations about this in terms of bartenders losing their license to serve.

Acceptable loses.

The upside of cocktailing far outweighs its downside. Our social lives revolve around getting together over cocktails. A good bottle of booze is part of every important event. Socializing with cocktails is an integral part of life.

Sure... Pictures of accidents are a terrible reminder of the consequences of cocktailing. Society is willing to accept those consequences. There are laws against drunk driving, serving too much, etc. etc... The courts are there to deal with the consequences of society's thirst for cocktails and retribution should reach into the profits of the industry.

Because cocktails are such an integral part of our lives it's wrong to have high personal penalties for over-enjoyment. A bigger responsibility should be forced on the beverage makers and retailers. Taxis should be free from bars to homes with the cost covered by the industry. Drunk driving laws will not stop a drunk from driving. A free taxi will.

Acceptable loses [sic]

The upside of [x] far outweighs its downside. Our social lives revolve around getting together over [x].

Your hypocrisy is amazing. I'm sure the irony is lost on you that your argument is equally applicable and valid for smoking, your personal bette noire.

iar,

Hypocrisy is in the eyes of the reader.

Calm down... This is a different topic. Offer something we can talk about. All this forum is is a place for conversation.

Hypocrisy is in the eyes of the reader. I rather think it is in the attitudes and words of the speaker.

Calm down... This is a different topic. I'm not excited. I'm merely pointing out that your "Acceptable losses" comment in this thread can equally be applied to the situation in which you opined that "For obvious reasons the legislation is based on maintaining a safe work place for employees. That's an easy argument and will eventually cover the globe." Safety regarding smoking is compelling reason for government regulation, but in regard to drinking, any deaths are "acceptable losses"? That's called hypocrisy.

So. Things to talk about. Why the two different attitudes for situations which are largely synonymous?

Iar,

Why the two different attitudes for situations which are largely synonymous?

It's too obvious for extensive comment, but...

You are invited to cocktail parties not smoking parties.
Your girlfriend wears a little black cocktail dress not a smoking jacket.
Bar cocktails are on special not cigarettes.
You don't launch ships with a carton of dirts.
You don't toast the newlyweds with a puff.
You make plans to meet friends for drinks not cigarettes.
Your first date is for drinks not cigarettes.
Etc., etc., etc...

JRO,

Smoking has been with us for the better part of 600 years.

You are invited to cocktail parties not smoking parties And yet, typically, people smoke at these.
Your girlfriend wears a little black cocktail dress not a smoking jacket. Speak for yourself.
Bar cocktails are on special not cigarettes. And yet drinking and smoking traditionally go together
You don't launch ships with a carton of dirts But while stationed on the ship, you play cards for smokes.
You don't toast the newlyweds with a puff But the newlyweds smoke after sex.
Your first date is for drinks not cigarettes unless you go to a hookah bar.
We also pass out cigars when our children are born, allow the condemned to enjoy a last smoke, toast victory with a scotch and a cigar, break the ice when meeting a stranger on the street by asking for a light, etc., etc., etc...

If you're trying to say that smoking is not and has not been a social activity, you've got a tough job ahead of you.

Iar,

It's behind me.
Stating the opposite of what everyone says is not an argument. Defend smokers stench all you want... You will always be on the losing "side".

Please don't reply with "It's ahead of you", "Smokers don't stink", "I'm not losing you are".

I see. So pointing out your hypocrisy and the fact that your "argument" is really nothing of the kind isn't addressing your posts? You're defending drinking because of it's social value, and completely ignoring any social value smoking may have. It's ok if you want to ignore reality in favor of what makes you comfortable in your hypocrisy, just don't claim that because you choose to stick your head in the sand, people aren't offering a rebuttal to your position.

Defend smokers stench all you want... Thanks, I think I will.

You will always be on the losing "side". Somehow I doubt it. These things sort of swing back and forth between extremes.

Please don't reply with "It's ahead of you", "Smokers don't stink", "I'm not losing you are". Well, you're free to address my substantive points anytime, if you are capable of it. Or are you one of those guys who trumpets "Argument over! I win!" and then flees the discussion patting himself on the back?

To really deal with my rebuttal, you'd have to show that there's no social dimension to smoking. Do you feel up to it? I can wait.

You win. People should stink.

Are you really arguing against smoking because it smells bad??

Yes.

We would not notice the health risk without the smell. It is the smell that shines the light on the health risk.

It's all about the smell. People sharing public space need to use common sense and compromise for everyone's general satisfaction. Many smokers do not smoke responsibly. Smoking is not a uncontrollable bodily function like a burp or fart which most people would try their best to control. There is no excuse for smokers smoking in public space. Why should smokers be allowed to grossly change the air quality for everyone around them just because they are addicted to nicotine? It makes no sense.

For some reason, the world seems to be largely populated by people who believe in singular responsibility even as a legal concept. Meaning, you neatly and easily arrange and responsibility in one tidy little place. The world isn't like that.

It is most certainly the responsibility of a drunk who gets into a car accident, but a bartender certainly has some responsibility in allowing someone who is obviously extremely drunk to have another drink before he gets in his car. And that's right, that's a judgement call. We all make them.

Frankly, the reason that bartenders don't get into trouble for what we are talking about very often is because it so obviously is hard to tell when someone's had to much, and that's appropriate. But it is not ok to say that they have no responsibility.

No. We're not talking about selling alcohol for consumption elsewhere. We're talking about selling alcohol to someone who clearly intends to drink it immediately and who is clearly already intoxicated. That's pretty different. I think the bartender in that situation is responsible.

What if one of your friends goes to a Superbowl get-together at your house with 25 people attending (bars may have over 100 patrons). You're busy entertaining and don't notice that he or she drinks too much, gets in an accident, and then you get sued (by the person(s) injured, your friend and/or by their next-of-kin). Let's assume your friend ends up unable to communicate after the accident. Assuming you are in a state that would allow such a suit, you have little or no defense. Did you know that your friend drove or arrived with other friends? Should you have to know the answer to that before allowing him or her to be served alcohol? What if your friend drinks too much, gets drunk, and then "unable to control themselves," robs a liquor store where someone dies in the robbery. Are you liable for that too? Where are you drawing the line and why?

You're busy entertaining and don't notice that he or she drinks too much,

That changes things completely, doesn't it? If you are not consciously giving someone alcohol knowing that he is too drunk, then you cannot be held liable. However, if you are consciously giving someone alcohol knowing that he is too drunk, then you should be liable.

In the case of a party it's harder to show who is responsible because usually people chip in for the alcohol and it's just open for the taking. That's completely different from a bartender who is selling drinks one at a time to individual people.

What if a bar owner serves someone who clearly does not appear to be intoxicated, and yet that person leaves the establishment, runs over a pedestrian, and blows over the legal limit? How are the bar staff to determine the "level of intoxication" or what kinds of decisions the drinker might make after leaving the premises? To reiterate Sam's question:

Where are you drawing the line and why?

As I said above, I am not saying that someone who doesn't consciously serve a drunk person should be held liable. I am only talking about people who know that the person is drunk, and situations in which there are witnesses that could clearly tell the person was already drunk and that the bartender clearly knew (or should have known).

As for figuring out whether the person will drive, I don't think that's relevant. I think the assumption should always be that someone is going to drive home, and I think the level of intoxication should be based on that. It's already against the law to be intoxicated in public. Why should it not be against the law for bartenders to serve to people who are intoxicated in public?

I am only talking about people who know that the person is drunk, and situations in which there are witnesses that could clearly tell the person was already drunk and that the bartender clearly knew (or should have known).

That's a slippery slope. Some people are more obvious when drunk than others. People react differently to alcohol and while I know there are bartenders who will cut you off if too drunk, as iarnucon states above, until you come up with a foolproof, non-subjective test it is unrealistic to expect bartenders to be legally liable.

As for figuring out whether the person will drive, I don't think that's relevant. I think the assumption should always be that someone is going to drive home

That's ridiculous. Treating every bar patron as if they were later driving? That essentially means limiting them to one drink or less per hour, no matter what. Every customer. When people go out for drinks, they expect to drink. If they are not driving, not putting anyone else in danger, why should they be stopped from doing so?

It's already against the law to be intoxicated in public. Why should it not be against the law for bartenders to serve to people who are intoxicated in public?

Because people are adults and make decisions for themselves.

That's ridiculous. Treating every bar patron as if they were later driving? That essentially means limiting them to one drink or less per hour, no matter what. Every customer. When people go out for drinks, they expect to drink. If they are not driving, not putting anyone else in danger, why should they be stopped from doing so?

I know for a fact that a huge number of people drink more than one drink per hour for a few hours and then get in a car to drive somewhere. That is ridiculous.

I think people are taking my position as more extreme than it really is. I've tried to explain several times that I'm not arguing that every time a drunk driver gets in an accident that we should go out looking for a bartender to blame. I'm saying that if that happens and someone comes forward and says "yeah, this bartender kept giving him drinks even though everyone around him knew he was wasted", then something should be done. If you can be charged with negligent homicide for encouraging someone to drink too much water, then why can't a licensed bartender be punished in some way (even if it's just losing his license) for continuing to serve someone who's obviously wasted? This position isn't nearly as extreme as you guys think it is.

Kemp,

I agree that bar owners hold some responsibility of their bartenders serving obviously drunk customers... along with the industry in general. This does not get the drunk off the hook... it just includes the deeper participants in the situation.

What if a bar owner serves someone who clearly does not appear to be intoxicated, and yet that person leaves the establishment, runs over a pedestrian, and blows over the legal limit? How are the bar staff to determine the "level of intoxication" or what kinds of decisions the drinker might make after leaving the premises? To reiterate Sam's question:

Where are you drawing the line and why?

"What happens when a duck, a christian, and a jew all walk into a bar... and..."

Sorry, bad place for a bar joke. You know, this is a place where judgement comes in. Do you know, judgement is? This is the sort of thing that gets decided in trials, and it's something that the jury is supposed to make up their minds on, and one of the things they get specifically instructed in is what the bartender could have been aware of.

If he wasn't obviously drunk, then in any state I know of the bartender isn't liable. You want to remove all judgement from the law, at least as relates to this one issue, and that's a bad idea.

Are we talking legality, or morality here? Because I've taken somebody keys away from them one night when they were about to go get into there car. If I hadn't done that, I think he and possibly others could have been hurt. If I hadn't, and he'd driven off and hit a tree, I would have blamed both him and myself.

Bartenders are licensed, and one reason for that is because they have certain responsibilities that a guy selling pepsi and hamburgers doesn't. They get paid for it, and they are responsible to take reasonable precautions.

You want to remove all judgement from the law, at least as relates to this one issue, and that's a bad idea. What I'm saying is that making some sort of legislation to enact legal borders on what the bartenders responsibilities are or should be means we are treading on dangerous ground, because those laws will be broadened. As far as what the jury will be instructed, the court is not above misleading the jury on what the jury's powers, rights and responsibilities are. Better not to even go there.

Are we talking legality, or morality here? I agree that there's a difference. And I applaud you for your actions; actions that I've taken myself on occasion.

Bartenders are licensed, and one reason for that is because they have certain responsibilities that a guy selling pepsi and hamburgers doesn't. They get paid for it, and they are responsible to take reasonable precautions. This gets said a lot. I don't know where you're from, but here in Ohio, I'm fairly certain that it is the bar that is licensed, not the bartender; and that the bartender doesn't get paid for being licensed or for taking "reasonable precautions", but for tending bar. I've known several people who were in no way "licensed", but who became bartenders by showing up at the bar, filling out an application, and showing up for work on day one.

We can agree that a bartender might have some moral responsibility for refusing to serve a drunk, the question is where their legal responsibility lies. I think a lot of people look at the "obvious" drunk and see someone incapable of making a rational decision. But they do so by ignoring the decisions that that person made to arrive at that state. It's easy to say that the bartender has some responsibility-- he's not drunk, while the patron is. But the drunk made the choice to get into the state he's in, putting it on the bartender is misplacing the responsibility.

Bartenders are licensed, and one reason for that is because they have certain responsibilities that a guy selling pepsi and hamburgers doesn't. They get paid for it, and they are responsible to take reasonable precautions. This gets said a lot. I don't know where you're from, but here in Ohio, I'm fairly certain that it is the bar that is licensed, not the bartender; and that the bartender doesn't get paid for being licensed or for taking "reasonable precautions", but for tending bar. I've known several people who were in no way "licensed", but who became bartenders by showing up at the bar, filling out an application, and showing up for work on day one.

Really? I was under the impression it was very different then that. In Colorado it's a full fledged career, and a pretty good one. A guy I know who works at the local bar actually went to a school and did have to get licensed. I'll ask him about the specifics.

iarnuocon, you're arguing a classic slippery slope fallacy. You're not attacking my position. You're attacking some hypothetical future extension of the law I'm in favor of. That's not a valid argument. The same reasoning could be applied to any law. Let's not make speeding illegal, because they might lower the speed limit too much. Let's not make drunk driving illegal because they might make that law too broad and arrest someone who has had just 2 drinks. Let's not make anything illegal, because at some point the law might be changed to something we disagree with.

That's basically your argument. You're not attacking any position that someone here has actually presented.

It's the drinker's fault for getting drunk. It's the bartender's fault (at least in part) for helping him get even more drunk after that.

I looked into the laws in Texas. According to the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC), you are not required to have a certification to sell alcohol (I thought it was required), though many employers do require that certification. The training for the certification explains the laws about selling alcohol, including not selling to people who are legally intoxicated (which is defined by law):

9. What are the consequences to a seller/server, if they serve or sell alcohol to an intoxicated person?

An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500, by confinement in jail for not more than one year, or by both.
If a person has been previously convicted of this violation, or the sale to a minor, a second violation is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, by confinement in jail for not more than one year, or by both.

So this is already illegal in Texas. Your fears have not come true.

iarnuocon, you're arguing a classic slippery slope fallacy. You're not attacking my position. You're attacking some hypothetical future extension of the law I'm in favor of. Perhaps, but this is one area, at least, where we have ample evidence that the slippery slope argument is, in fact, a valid argument. The same entity which insisted that asset forfeiture laws were intended to target only the rich drug dealers extended those laws to target everyone they could possibly encompass under the law, the same folks who insisted that seatbelt violations would not be considered a primary violation (i.e. a violation for which, alone, motorists would be stopped and ticketed) now consider it a primary violation, etc. There are numerous examples of this, and your rosy picture in which only the worst offenders in the most obvious examples will actually suffer consequences is unwarranted and pollyannaish in the extreme.

Let's not make speeding illegal... Let's not make drunk driving illegal... While we're pointing out examples of each other's fallacies, this is the classic straw-man. A more appropriate analogy would be making riding with a speeder illegal, or making being the passenger of a drunk driver illegal, and both of those would suffer the same deficiencies as your "the bartender should assume responsibility" argument.

Gotta go... I'll address the latter half of your post later.

I'm sorry, the comment tracker missed some posts.

A more appropriate analogy would be making riding with a speeder illegal, or making being the passenger of a drunk driver illegal, and both of those would suffer the same deficiencies as your "the bartender should assume responsibility" argument.

No, those would be terrible analogies because a passenger does not enable someone to speed or drive drunk. He is not actively participating in that person's illegal activities. Also, as I pointed out, it is already illegal to serve alcohol to an intoxicated person.

Also, I just want to clarify that my entire argument has been in favor of a law that already exists, not an expansion of that law. The only thing I could ask for is better enforcement.

No, those would be terrible analogies because a passenger does not enable someone to speed or drive drunk. I'll concede the speeding analogy is poor. On the drunk-driving thing, though, the passenger is surely partially responsible. The driver didn't get drunk while driving, and the passenger did nothing to actively restrain the driver from getting behind the wheel. The passenger has exactly the same toolset for ascertaining the drunkenness of the driver as the bartender does. In essence, the question revolves around who can really know whether the drinker is drunk, in the absence of any objective tools for determining this. Somebody having to rely on their judgment of another's mental state, or the person actually experiencing the mental state?

Also, as I pointed out, it is already illegal to serve alcohol to an intoxicated person. Without giving the bartender tools to ascertain whether the patron meets the criteria, the enforcement of this law is completely arbitrary, which is precisely the point I was trying to make. In order to be in compliance, bartenders would have to adhere to strict rules about how many drinks (1) could be served over a specific time period (1 hour), and even then would likely still be out of compliance with the law, since different people metabolize alcohol at different rates.

the comment tracker missed some posts. Yeah, I've noticed that, too, over the last week or so. What's up with that?

Not actively restraining is different from directly contributing. Your analogy would be better suited to argue against holding a bartender responsible for not preventing a drunk person from leaving with his car keys. I'm not arguing for that. I'm saying a bartender shouldn't be allowed to continue to serve someone who's already drunk.

The definition of intoxicated is clear enough that a bartender should be able to figure it out. There's even training available. I know of no cases in which a bartender has been prosecuted for a borderline case. In fact, as far as I can tell this law is rarely enforced at all.

Not at all laws can be crystal clear. It's impossible. Even the DUI law allows some leeway. There's the legal BAC limit, but in addition to that in Texas you can be arrested for DUI even if you're just showing the signs of being intoxicated and unable to drive. This allows police to arrest people who are intoxicated in some other way. Of course there's some room for abuse, but without the law there would be no way to prosecute people who have clearly done something wrong. This kind of law cannot be written in a strict way and still be useful.

The judicial system is in place as a sanity check to prevent abuses of the laws. It's their job to ultimately determine if the law is being applied correctly.

Not actively restraining is different from directly contributing. Not by much.

Your analogy would be better suited to argue against holding a bartender responsible for not preventing a drunk person from leaving with his car keys. You mean we're not talking, at least partially, about exactly this?

The definition of intoxicated is clear enough that a bartender should be able to figure it out. How?

There's the legal BAC limit, but in addition to that in Texas you can be arrested for DUI even if you're just showing the signs of being intoxicated and unable to drive. You can be arrested in Texas for any reason at all.

This allows police to arrest people who are intoxicated in some other way. Yes, clearly this is not about raising revenue. It's all about safety. Nobody can say these types of laws will be used to justify blanket sweeps to net unsuspecting patrons and bartenders unintentionally "violating" the law! It's totally reasonable!!

This kind of law cannot be written in a strict way and still be useful. Then it shouldn't be written at all.

without the law there would be no way to prosecute people who have clearly done something wrong. I'm sorry. Are we still talking about drunk drivers and belligerent drunks? Or someone who's wrongdoing is a whole lot less obvious?

Here's a novel idea, and one I keep gravitating to-- why not charge the drunks for their drunken behavior? Why bother creating additional "crimes", when we can go right to the source of the problem? People who fail to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions.

Actually the example you cite is exactly what I think should be done. If he was already intoxicated and the bartender sold him more alcohol, then that bartender broke the law. Like I said, there's training for this. Now I think it should be the prosecutor's responsibility to provide evidence that the bartender should have known (like witnesses who say the man stumbling and unable to speak clearly or something), but once that has been provided there is absolutely not moral problem with this law.

I don't understand your "can be arrested for anything" link. That's talking about arresting people for being intoxicated in public. That's not "anything". That's a specific crime that those people were violating. Now your whole argument seems to be against the law against public intoxication in general. That's an entirely different argument. Perhaps you think public drunkeness is a right. I don't know why you would think that, though. It's not.

Here's a novel idea, and one I keep gravitating to-- why not charge the drunks for their drunken behavior? Why bother creating additional "crimes", when we can go right to the source of the problem? People who fail to take responsibility for themselves and their own actions.

Why do we charge people with speeding? If you can't answer that (it's pretty damn obvious) then that's your problem.

I don't understand your "can be arrested for anything" link. That's talking about arresting people for being intoxicated in public. That's not "anything". That's a specific crime that those people were violating. I guess if I have to spell it out

• witnesses said the cops made arrests based upon nothing more substantial than hunches.
• These cops are arresting people who have committed no crime in order to prevent them from committing one.
• Without administering a breath test or some such how is an officer to know? Easy, say SIP supporters: Their agents make skilled judgment calls.
• Capt. Alexander instructs his agents to listen for people who seem "argumentative." The line of evidentiary procedure here is flimsy as a cobweb.
• Judge Sharon Cloninger, who is presiding over the agency's attempt to revoke the Dallas Night Club's liquor permit, stated that the agency failed to prove that the club's bartenders knowingly and intentionally continued serving drunk customers.
• Although TABC officers receive some classroom training on how to recognize public intoxication at headquarters in Austin, the agency has no training film on the subject.

Poorly trained officers go in undercover, arrest people based on nothing more than a hunch, in order to build cases against bars for "over-serving." I'm not sure what's so difficult to understand about that. The potential for abuse of this sort of thing is huge, and it turns out that with a little investigating you can find plenty of examples in which it IS being abused.
...

Why do we charge people with speeding? Why don't we charge the salesman who sold the speeder the car? Why don't we charge the gas station attendant? The guy who sold him tires? His mechanic?
...
Because regardless of what they sold him, he's the one who has the responsibility to stay within the law and use the product he was sold responsibly. Same thing with bartenders.
...
If you don't understand the similarity, that's your problem.

Yes, the people who were arrested said that. The arresting officers said otherwise. He said, she said.

Judge Sharon Cloninger, who is presiding over the agency's attempt to revoke the Dallas Night Club's liquor permit, stated that the agency failed to prove that the club's bartenders knowingly and intentionally continued serving drunk customers.

Thank you for showing examples of the Judicial system preventing prosecution of borderline cases. That's what they're there for, and that's what makes this law workable. Without them I would agree with you, but with judges in place to demand evidence that the bartenders did something wrong the law works.

"Nothing more than a hunch" is an exaggeration based on one side of the story. You're basically implying that all of those officers are lying.

You didn't understand the speeding analogy. Speeding doesn't hurt anyone, does it? So why is it illegal? Why do we prosecute people who might hurt someone? That's the argument presented in your first link above. Because no one actually got behind the wheel nothing they were doing was wrong, right? Wrong. That's a poor argument, and it's the same logic as saying that speeding should be legal because they haven't actually hurt anyone.

The truth is speeding does hurt people, drunk driving does hurt people, and contributing to public intoxication does hurt people. That's why all of those things are illegal.

We're arguing in circles here, and I don't think it's accomplishing anything.

Yes, the people who were arrested said that. And the witnesses, who were not arrested, and the people who were questioned, but who were not drunk and not arrested, and the bar owners, who were not prosecuted. It's a bit more than he said, she said.

Thank you for showing examples of the Judicial system preventing prosecution of borderline cases. The cases were prosecuted. The prosecution did not make its case. In other words, borderline cases were prosecuted, but thanks to a judge, the cases were thrown out.

You're basically implying that all of those officers are lying. Those officers are not properly trained, and are incapable of making adequate judgments about who is intoxicated and who isn't, with the result that they are testing people whom they have no reason to detain or test, and charging people whom they cannot make cases against. There's no implication involved.

You didn't understand the speeding analogy. I did understand the speeding analogy. You didn't understand the gas station attendant corollary to your argument. Charging the bartender is exactly like charging the gas station attendant. And since we're bringing up speeding as an appropriate analogy, what makes you think that this law won't be abused in the way that charging people with speeding is abused-- you know, speed traps, miscalibrated or totally uncalibrated radar and laser guns, arbitrary enforcement, etc.? Now assume you have all those deficiencies, but allow the police to also charge the gas station owner for providing the gas.

The responsibility for any wrongdoing belongs to the speeder, and the drunk.

We're arguing in circles here, and I don't think it's accomplishing anything. Right, let's agree to disagree, because I really don't buy the argument you're making, and have seen to many abuses of laws like these to go along on a hope and a prayer.

No one is suggesting that we not hold the drinkers themselves responsible. That's not in question, so I don't know why people consider that an alternative. The question is should you, as a bartender, be responsible enough to refuse to serve someone who is obviously drunk? In my opinion, the answer is a strong "yes".

Any reasons preventing you from refusing to serve someone should be dealt with as well. You should have absolute discretion in who to serve alcohol to, and there should be legal protection for you if someone attempts to sue you for refusing to serve. There should be no excuse for serving an obviously-intoxicated person more alcohol.

There should be no excuse for serving an obviously-intoxicated person more alcohol.

What's your benchmark here? I can tell when my friends are buzzed. I can tell when my friends are drunk. But in a lot of cases I can't tell when my friends are so drunk they shouldn't drink anymore. And this is after drinking with them repeatedly and seeing how they react to alcohol. How is a bartender supposed to know?

I guess my thing here is in this thread you throw around "obviously intoxicated person" pretty freely without really defining what you mean.

My benchmark is "obvious". I've explained this. If you can't tell the person is drunk, then you can't be held responsible. If someone is stumbling, slurred speech, can't concentrate, etc. then that person is obviously drunk. That's your benchmark.

Again, if someone is drunk and you can't tell then I do not think the bartender is in any way responsible.

Again, if someone is drunk and you can't tell then I do not think the bartender is in any way responsible. Then you're against the law as it is currently written in Texas, and as it has been enforced virtually everywhere in the United States. See comment #2.18 for some of the numerous available examples, including abuse of your "clearly written" Texan law.

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy only when you don't have convincing evidence that the slippery slope exists. The slippery slope argument as applied to the extension of and abuse of government power is fairly well documented, Adam.

Example 1: No specific instances of a non-intoxicated person being arrested.
Example 2: No specific instances of a non-intoxicated person being arrested.
Example 2: No specific instances of a non-intoxicated person being arrested.

So what exactly have you shown? Those articles are nothing more than "he said, she said" claims and exaggeration.

Let me put it in bold type, to be sure you don't miss it for a third time:

Judge Sharon Cloninger, who is presiding over the agency's attempt to revoke the Dallas Night Club's liquor permit, stated that the agency failed to prove that the club's bartenders knowingly and intentionally continued serving drunk customers.

So what exactly have I shown? Police agents targeting an establishment, harassing patrons who were obviously not drunk with the intent to ferret out anyone they could possibly use against the establishment, police trying and failing to build a case of bartenders over-serving patrons.

Tell me again about how this law will only be used in the most egregious and obvious of cases...

Some cities won't go for that. The 'burb I live in only has 3 bars (specifically restaurants with bars in them) in the whole city. And don't even think about going to the city council and asking about putting up some new cell towers so I could, you know, actually use my cell phone -- that would just be stupid.

The other problem is transportation. Here in Cleveland bars must stop serving at 2:30 am, but the public transportation stops running in most areas around 1 am (and doesn't even run routes in certain areas), and cabs tend to take a while to show up.

this is the real solution!
yes folks the real reason that people are getting killed or maimed at greater rates is that we have traveling living rooms on wheels in which to convey our drunken asses.
This is the source of the problem, not being over-served.
I had lived in the same area for nearly a decade where most of the local watering holes were within walking distance. In addition, most of the patrons walked to these bars. In other cities where I have visited same thing, or a subway/ "l" ride away.
However out in suburbia your local planning commissions and in some case zone boards/ chamber of commerces have essentially placed homes and commerce unmercifully far away for people to be able to walk to these establishments. Why, one could speculate that easy access to the local interstate highway would probably be more important to them as opposed to people friendly planning.
Being soused and unpleasant is usually the cut off line for most bartenders, being over-served is the sound of someone looking for a way to put off paying the price for their own local governments greed. If local government became involved in say prosecuting bars for over serving, even more the point of this hypocrisy and subsequent greed factor.

If someone is at your house, you are not "serving" them alcohol. It's also not in public. The situations aren't comparable.

If someone is at your house, you are not "serving" them alcohol. Yes, you are.

It's also not in public. You are not considered to be "in public" when you are in a bar. This is why it is legal for you to be drunk inside the bar, but illegal for you to be drunk on the sidewalk outside the bar.

I wish you nannies would figure out this whole "public/private" thing. It's not that hard, really.

You're right about the "public" part (good point), but I disagree on the serving part. A bartender must be licensed to serve alcohol. Since you're not required to be licensed to throw a party, it's logical to conclude that legally you're not "serving" alcohol at a private party in the same sense of the word. You are not, on an individual basis, selling someone one drink at a time in a business transaction.

You are not, on an individual basis, selling someone one drink at a time in a business transaction. So, how does caveat emptor NOT apply in this situation?

I understand from your comments above that you're thinking along the lines that someone who is stumbling, blithering, propped-up-on-the-bar drunk, but doesn't practical experience tell you that the blurry line between "obviously" drunk and "just sorta" drunk will be quickly crossed? Especially if the bar can be fined for over-serving. Look at the extension of asset forfeiture for a prime example. Ostensibly it was to be used against Colombian cartel drug dealers-- the multi-millionaire Miami Vice type Hollywood criminal-- and wound up being used to seize the homes of grandmothers whose grandsons sold dime bags while living there.

I think we should be really, really... really leery of extending government power. Ever.

Caveat emptor does apply, but bartenders have to be licensed for a reason. There are other restrictions on who they can sell to and when. What's wrong with this additional restriction?

I'm saying that you can sell alcohol to someone up to the point at which they are obviously already intoxicated. It's not a fool-proof way to guarantee that no one can ever get drunk, nor is it making it illegal to get someone drunk. It's just a limitation on how drunk a bartender will allow someone to get.

What's wrong with this additional restriction? I just told you what's wrong with it. It will be abused. Severely. Right now you're thinking that "obviously" no one would use such legislation for anything other than for what it's intended-- stopping bartenders from serving "obviously" drunk patrons. What I'm thinking is that obviously no one was going to use asset forfeiture laws to go after the homes of grandmas, or clunkers that had little resale value, or the money in the wallet of someone stopped for a broken taillight. And yet all those things happened.

So even if I agreed with you that the bartender bears some responsibility for the choices a drinker makes, I'd still counsel against this sort of legislation. Because inevitably some law enforcement fellow somewhere is going to think, "hey, this is a great way to increase the revenue stream to my department." And then he's going to go after the bartenders who serve anyone pulled over for a DUI.

Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

You're arguing against a poor implementation of a law that hasn't even been written. I'm talking about the idea of this law. If it's worded so poorly as to allow any bartender to be prosecuted for every DUI then I'm against it too, so we're not disagreeing. My point is that if we could write such a law with clear terms and strong standards for evidence before a prosecution, then this would be a good thing. Do you disagree with that?

Let's not get distracted by hypotheticals. We're talking about a concept, not an implementation.

My point is that if we could write such a law with clear terms and strong standards for evidence before a prosecution, then this would be a good thing. Do you disagree with that? no.

Let's not get distracted by hypotheticals. We're talking about a concept, not an implementation. We're talking about both. Unless you intend your law to remain hypothetical only, in which case why are we even talking about it? If your hypothetical is implemented, it will eventually be broadened to include the scenarios which the first draft of the law carefully made into exceptions. At which point you and I will have to work very hard to reverse the damage (as I have worked very hard on a volunteer basis to reverse the damage of asset forfeiture laws, a project which to this day has not been completed). I'd rather we not even get started down that road.

Especially since we're talking about the choices that are being made by adults, here. Put the blame squarely where it belongs, as I said in the first post. There is absolutely no doubt about who chose to get drunk, or who swallowed the alcohol.

I am against writing a law so broad that it can be abused. I'm not going to argue about that. However, any law can be written poorly and then abused. That doesn't make every law a bad idea. I'm arguing in favor of a well-defined law that errs on the side of the bartender (with an assumption of innocence).

Once again: no one has argued that the driver is not responsible for driving drunk. Not once has that ever been suggested. I wish people would quit responding like this is an alternative to punishing the driver to the fullest extent of the law.

Punishing a bartender for serving someone well over the legal limit has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not (or how much) you punish the person doing the drinking. The fundamental question is whether or not bartenders should be restricted in how much they can sell to one person in one night. I don't see why anyone can be for restrictions such as "all bars must close at 2am" and against any restriction on how much alcohol can be sold to one person in one night.

I understand your position. I simply don't agree with it. Like I said in my last comment, "it's okay [if you don't agree with me]." iarnuocon made some persuasive arguments to you and you did not alter your position in the slightest. That is your right and I respect that.

However, if you wish to talk about the pros and cons of charging bartenders with vicarious liability for DUIs, I will be happy to exchange one con for every pro you throw at me (at least for the first 10. After that, no guarantees. I may tire). If you like, you may throw in pros for drink limits at intervals to make this even more interesting. One pro and one con at a time. One sentence at a time. If you are not interested, no hard feelings and I wish well (the same goes if you do respond also ;)

He has not actually disagreed with my argument at all. He has presented a slippery slope argument, which is basically a future-looking straw man. He's attacking an argument I'm not making. See my post above. This law already exists in Texas. Selling to intoxicated people is already illegal here.

See above: "In any event, if a bartender serves someone who is obviously intoxicated, the law in many (not just 1, 2, or a few) jurisdictions already opens the door for a suit against the bartender (or even the bar itself)." For your records, a slippery slope is essentially a path taken after which, not only is difficult (if not impossible to turn back), it is very difficult to keep from sliding further and further beyond where you ever intended to venture in the first place. I am on the verge of such a slope now. I am not attacking anything. With all due respect, I am not traveling any further down the path on this topic with you.

I do not drink, and I refuse to install a device on my car to prove that I'm not drunk. Modifying the cars is not the answer either.

Adam,

I agree with you, but, loosen up... Have a cocktail. They're deeeelicious!

You don't need to drink the whole bottle. Think about the people that won't try sushi just because it's raw fish. Life is a buffet... Grab a plate.

It would make just as much sense to me if you had asked me to just loosen up and try some cocaine. No thanks. I love tea, and that's good enough for me. It tastes great and doesn't impair my judgment.

Adam,

Okay... Baby steps. Get your hands on a "Black Box" CD or download and play it at 6/10 volume. That's got to be worth one small line or three Bud Lites. If you push it to 8/10 you've taken a baby step.