How to Get Thirty-Nine Million Dollars - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

The_Jazz · 11-02-2007, 04:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Sadly you're right, but we can hope the ins. co. jacked up their rate for it. . .

Oh yeah, you better believe it.

FoolThemAll · 11-02-2007, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

They're dispensing a known intoxicant, they must share at least partial responsibility for its effects if they are the ones who allowed the guy to have the booze.

We might as well sentence the drunk driver as a juvenile, since the staff at Outback are required to make all the grownup decisions for him.

Yes, it's a known intoxicant. That's the point. The customer knows the risks. It's on him, entirely. We should not be treating the minimum-wage college student waitress as though she's his mommy.

xxxafterglow · 11-02-2007, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by flstf

It seems like a good idea to hold the evil restaurant corporations responsible but what about the little mom and pop restaurants and bars, etc..? Do we really want to blame wedding party organizers, etc.. for those who over do it?

I recently attended my class reunion where there was an open self serve bar and self serve coolers at the picnic the next day. Many of us drank too much (my wife was driving). Should we hold the two gals who volunteered their time to organize the event responsible when someone drinks too much and drives?

We should not expect the servers, bartenders, etc..to know who is driving and who has consumed more than they can hold. The blame should be put right where it belongs, on those who decide to get drunk and drive.

Why do you think bouncers and exist at corporate AND independently-owned restaurants? If you facilitated the drink, you assisted in the accident.

There's a reason this is examined on a case-by-case basis. In some instances, the waitress/bartender/staff can clearly see that the customer is a potential danger to him/herself and/or others. A lot of staff (in both corporate and independently-owned places) are told to cut people off once they've had too much.

Hey man, we're just asking for a little accountability.

EDIT: By the way, I'm not advocating absolving the drunk driver of responsibility. Drunk driver = driver + drink. The college-aged waitress isn't making the grown-up decisions for the person, she's making an intelligent decision to cut him off when he becomes a potential hazard. If she keeps bringing him drinks to the point of him having trouble walking straight as he fumbles for his car keys ... well, it doesn't take a college student to figure out that he probably shouldn't be driving.
It's not unheard of for staff to call a cab or a friend. It's part of good customer service. We try to aim for a low death rate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoolThemAll

We might as well sentence the drunk driver as a juvenile, since the staff at Outback are required to make all the grownup decisions for him.

Yes, it's a known intoxicant. That's the point. The customer knows the risks. It's on him, entirely. We should not be treating the minimum-wage college student waitress as though she's his mommy.

Unfortunately, when some people get drunk, they are incapable of making intelligent grownup decisions.

The sober college-aged staff, however, are.

Sion · 11-02-2007, 08:20 PM

the problem (one of many) that I have with making the bartender/server responsible for the drunk: by the time a person is visibly drunk enough to get cut off, he or she is already too drunk to drive. at this point, he or she may (and often times do) get angry with the bartender for cutting him off, storm out and drive away drunk.

do we still hold the bartender responsible?

on the other hand, some people can be utterly plastered and exhibit very little outward signs of drunkenness. these folks usually do not get cut off, but still drive away drunk.

still wanna hold the bartender responsible?

I believe in the doctine of personal responsibility. if YOU chose to do something stupid, and something bad results, its YOUR fault and YOURS alone.

flstf · 11-10-2007, 06:48 AM

Here is another case of misdirected blame. I wonder what it must be like to debate assigning blame during jury deliberations. Do the majority really think that U-Haul is to blame for someone not tieing down what they haul? I guess pickup truck owners are blameless as well and the truck manufacturers should be blamed when something flies off the back.

Quote:

Woman blinded on I-405 gets $15 million

A Renton woman who was left blind and disfigured by a 2004 freeway accident said Friday that she hopes a King County jury's $15.5 million verdict will help her get back to living a more normal, independent life. The Superior Court jury struggled for nearly a week before deciding U-Haul was mainly to blame when a board smashed through Maria Federici's windshield, nearly killing the University of Washington graduate.

Jurors found the company 67 percent at fault and laid the remaining 33 percent on James Hefley, the driver who didn't tie down the entertainment center he'd been towing in an open U-Haul trailer.

Jurors, however, found that Federici had no fault in what happened. Under state law, that key decision means U-Haul would have to pay the entire $15.5 million if Hefley can't pay his share -- a likelihood, given that he's declared bankruptcy.

Jurors found the trailer Hefley was towing that night was "not reasonably safe" and did not come with adequate instructions or warnings. They agreed U-Haul International Inc. and U-Haul Co. of Washington were negligent.

Hefley was cited for failing to secure a load. He didn't face criminal charges because prosecutors didn't find enough evidence that he knew he'd caused an accident.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21719823/

fckin_bored · 11-11-2007, 03:27 PM

I believe in personal responsibility, for both parties (drunko and outback). It is Outbacks responsibility to limit drinks to a person who is getting very intoxicated but why should they be responsible for how they leave? If you're going out to drink YOU need to figure out your way home. Saying that Outback is responsible for a drunk mans ride home is asking a company to be a babysitter for an alcoholic.

Making it a legal requirement that restaurants are responsible for a drunk's actions further denies the addiction that most likely is taking place.

As for the people hit, it must be awful to have expierenced that and with all the doctors visits and pain management there is probably a hefty bill, one that could probably not be afforded by the drinker. But is it really Outback's responsibility to pay for that? So, if I get drunk at home, leave and wreck, can I sue the makers of Hennesey? I mean if Outback is responsible for it, why not the damn company that advertises and sells that shit.

Where did they get the number $39 million anyway?

11-02-2007, 08:20 PM	#44 (permalink)
Sion Dumb all over...a little ugly on the side Location: In the room where the giant fire puffer works, and the torture never stops.	the problem (one of many) that I have with making the bartender/server responsible for the drunk: by the time a person is visibly drunk enough to get cut off, he or she is already too drunk to drive. at this point, he or she may (and often times do) get angry with the bartender for cutting him off, storm out and drive away drunk. do we still hold the bartender responsible? on the other hand, some people can be utterly plastered and exhibit very little outward signs of drunkenness. these folks usually do not get cut off, but still drive away drunk. still wanna hold the bartender responsible? I believe in the doctine of personal responsibility. if YOU chose to do something stupid, and something bad results, its YOUR fault and YOURS alone. __________________ He's the best, of course, of all the worst. Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...

11-11-2007, 03:27 PM	#46 (permalink)
fckin_bored Upright Location: 727, Florida	I believe in personal responsibility, for both parties (drunko and outback). It is Outbacks responsibility to limit drinks to a person who is getting very intoxicated but why should they be responsible for how they leave? If you're going out to drink YOU need to figure out your way home. Saying that Outback is responsible for a drunk mans ride home is asking a company to be a babysitter for an alcoholic. Making it a legal requirement that restaurants are responsible for a drunk's actions further denies the addiction that most likely is taking place. As for the people hit, it must be awful to have expierenced that and with all the doctors visits and pain management there is probably a hefty bill, one that could probably not be afforded by the drinker. But is it really Outback's responsibility to pay for that? So, if I get drunk at home, leave and wreck, can I sue the makers of Hennesey? I mean if Outback is responsible for it, why not the damn company that advertises and sells that shit. Where did they get the number $39 million anyway? __________________ forever in debt to your priceless advice