Another Fatal Sled Accident?

[Swimmy]

As much as I agree with you, bobbiez, unfortunately the Dram Shop Act makes bartenders or any person serving alcohol for immediate consumption on the premises liable for continuing to serve a person who is obviously and visibly drunk. I forget the reason why the statute was enabled. But prior to that law, the courts did not hold the server responsible. That's two subjects away for me in my review. I'll let you know more when I get there.

And, Froggy, you're not any of those, I agree with you.

[bobbbiez]

swimmy, the law is the reason why I quit the job of bartending for good. Even though I enjoyed that kind of work because I enjoy meeting people and if you're a good bartender, you are paid extremely well which I needed to support my family. As a part time job there is no better. It got to the point where the "babysitting" responsibility of it wasn't worth any kind of money. I could share with you plenty of stories concerning that part of the job.
It's not just the intoxicated person you have to worry about. It's also the people they come in with that you have to fight and most are not intoxicated, but they fight with you to give their "friend" "just one more" or they try to sneak their "friend" drinks. You know why? Because if the bartender makes their "friend" leave that means their own night of fun is over with. Pretty damn selfish and stupid, but that is just a few things a bartender has to put up with.
Very quickly an example. While working one night a regular customer came into the bar and immediately put his head on the bar and fell asleep because he had one too many at "home." I got his car keys which were laying on the bar and called his family to come and get him. They did, about an hour later. By time they arrived the regular woke up and you guessed it, I had to fight his own family not to serve him just "one more" because they figured they were out now and might as well have a few themselves.

That is just one story I'll share with you but there's plenty more of them and some you would just not believe. It's not always that easy for a bartender to comply with a law that everyone else doesn't want to abide by.

Yes, let me know when you get to that part of your legal studies what the law states. I'm sure they're adding to it every time there is another incident when someone else decides to drink and drive. Just for my own curiosity.

As far as this recent unnecessary death, I'm not assuming he was drunk. Just discussing the possibility.

[bobbbiez]

Oops I forgot.

STUDY HARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ;D

[rrogers40]

I don't care if he was drunk or not- but I am sure he did something stupid.

Just like I have no sympathy for someone who goes 90 down the road and runs their car into a tree, or a person who does a wheely down the Boulevard- I have no sympathy for a person who does stupid stuff.

I will say sorry he died to the family but I'm not going to play this game of giving him any sympathy. And if I do something stupid like that and die I would expect the same- there is a difference between stupidity and an accident.

[bobbbiez]

Totally agree with you.

My sympathy is with his family who are left behind to bear the pain and suffering because of his actions.

[countrygal]

Ok...here's a question......should the sled makers NOT make sleds that go that fast? Unless you're buying the sled for racing purposes, why make them go more than 40 miles an hour? Just looking for opinions.

[bobbbiez]

I asked that exact question talking about a similar subject at a meeting last week and I wasn't surprised at the answer I got from the men there.

"It's all about speed to them." Never understood that and still don't. In my younger days I raced on a Powderpuff team for a ski-doo dealer in Utica, but once I was off the race track it was a whole different ballgame. I respect the law and I respect the use and power of the machine. Not a hard thing to do when you just have some common sense.

[Swimmy]

It is about speed. I'm a thrill seeker and love going fast. Probably why I swam fast, I just loved the rush of the water pass my face. Anywhooo, I have a constitutionally protected right to be stupid. At least that's what my con law professor said. He got frustrated when I suggested negligence claims are unconstitutional then because most of the defendants acted stupidly. Then I studied Strict Products Liability, and some of the cases were just amazing. You wonder why a tv dinner has on the instructions, "remove meal from box." It's because of the stupid people who were too stupid to do that in the first place, sued and won.

If I want to drive a snowmobile in excess of 40 mph on a wooded trail at night, I can, because I'm stupid

Survival of the fit, I always say. Who are we to stop nature from cleansing the gene pool?

[Swimmy]

Boy that was light-hearted. I do feel sorry for the family having to deal with the loss of life. And really, it is too bad that someone died.

[Ralph]

Life is all about choice. While I am saddened by yet another life lost, it leads one to question why people aren't more careful.

I agree with you Swimmy on the right to be stupid.

Whether drinking or not, it's a "trail" for God's sake. Not a road with guard rails. It's dark, it's slippery, you're going too fast, you may be drunk, sleepy, whatever......sooner or later it will catch up to you.

[bobbbiez]

But why do you guys push it to the limits? As a woman, I really try to give you deserved credit for being smarter then that but you always manage to disappoint me.

[wcup102]

Whether this is true or not, I did hear it from someone today in law enforcement, that the young man was in his parents bar the night before clamoring about how stupid people are that come up here from Jersey and other places because they don't know the trails and get all tanked up and speed down a trail they have never been on before. Probably should not have repeated it, but I found it interesting, ironic and somewhat believable. Go figure. I do know that the family has had several run ins with the law for various reasons stemming from violations to felonies.

[thelma]

bobbbiez said:

Very sore subject for me. I'm really sick of hearing it's everyone else's fault that someone gets too drunk to drive anything. When it should fall only on the person who doesn't take responsibility for their own actions.

<snip>
This kid is dead because of his own wrong choices. God rest his soul. He paid dearly. I don't believe any one else should be held accountable.
.

...........................................................................................I understand where you are coming from, Bobbbiez.

Our Society has turned - we now have to blame someone or something for any mishap that occurs. And our legal system is more than willing to participate in passing laws that allows you to sue someone else - for your own lack of common sense.

We even issue Insurance Policies now to protect a business owner from these types of lawsuits. For bars/restaurants that serve liquor - there is Liquor Liability Coverage (pays for any lawsuits brought against the business because someone got drunk at their establishment and left only to cause an accident where someone else got hurt).

If you have a House Party in your own home - YOU are held responsible if you "allow" a Guest to leave that has had too much to drink and causes damages to another elsewhere.

Why can't we do away with all these laws making others responsible for the wrongful acts of others? IMO, the person who allows himself or herself to become intoxicated, should also be responsible 100% for the consequences that might be incurred based on their own actions.

[Swimmy]

bobbbiez said:

But why do you guys push it to the limits? As a woman, I really try to give you deserved credit for being smarter then that but you always manage to disappoint me.

Because if we didn't, we would not know where those limits are. If we did not constantly "push the envelop" the sound barrier might have never been broken, jets would not exist, and space flight would still be a purely sci-fi concept. Records were made to be broken and stuff. Now, there is what I call intelligent limit pushing, e.g. breaking the speed of sound. And there is what I call stupid limit pushing, e.g. seeing how many beers you can drink before getting behind the wheel. That last example is one that should never be tested. I was called an old man a few weeks ago when I over heard a few high school students bragging about how they could still drive regularly even with 8 beers in them. I guess unless you've lost a friend to drunk driving, you fail to understand the advice and dismiss it as the ramblings of a square loser.

thelma said:

If you have a House Party in your own home - YOU are held responsible if you "allow" a Guest to leave that has had too much to drink and causes damages to another elsewhere.

That's a split school of thought. Some states believe that people who throw house parties are not trained to determine who is too drunk to receive any more booze, or in situations where it is BYOB, hard to limit their alcohol intake. Other states hold that if you throw enough parties where booze is consumed you learn through experience. Still others hold no liability unless you host a party for under-age drinkers, in which case and almost absolute liability is imposed, depending on whether you condoned the under-age drinking. It also depends on how well you know the guests.

[froggy]

wcup102 said:

Whether this is true or not, I did hear it from someone today in law enforcement, that the young man was in his parents bar the night before clamoring about how stupid people are that come up here from Jersey and other places because they don't know the trails and get all tanked up and speed down a trail they have never been on before. Probably should not have repeated it, but I found it interesting, ironic and somewhat believable. Go figure. I do know that the family has had several run ins with the law for various reasons stemming from violations to felonies.

Well I guess if he crashed farther down the trail than the NJ couple the other night, He sure showed NJ sledders that NY'ers are better.

Yeah, I know, totally tasteless. but if this is true that he was bragging about someone else's demise and then repeats it himself, well, not exactly the smartest move.