You should probably read better. The law holds clubs liable if they serve alcohol to patrons already clearly drunk. In which case, the club has done it's job.

I disagree, this was a very appropriate ruling. Not everyone who goes out to a bar or club does so to get falling down drunk. When I do go out I rarely have more than a few drinks. I particularly careful if I am the one driving since I do not need to get a DUI. Bars and clubs should be held responsible for controlling how much they are serving their patrons. Too many take the attitude of selling as much as they can to make the most money and will not cut someone off unless they actually pass out or start causing problems. They then sit there and watch these drunks go out and get behind the wheels of their cars. I definitely think that more bars/clubs need to be held responsible when they continue to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated. I have seen people walk into a bar already so drunk they could not walk straight, probably because they got cut off somewhere else, and get served by the bartender. Some states take this issue more seriously than others. In some states, they will even go after the bartender that served the person with criminal charges. In Maryland, if someone leaves a bar drunk and gets into an accident injuring or killing someone, the bartender can end up facing criminal charges including a negligent homicide charge if someone dies. Hopefully this ruling will send a strong message, if only in Texas, that these establishment are going to be held responsible for their business practices.

This is totally common. That's why bars have insurance for it.

What a terrible shame. No amount of money will bring back Kasey.

real class @ 1.6 Its the governments fault? Yes its never the drinkers fault or the bar that serves him to much. I guess in your eyes the woman was at fault to just for being there. The dude driving was drunk the club served him. A woman was killed. You blame the government question the woman in the parking lot not to mention the driver. Who is the responsible party for this the driver, the club, government, or the woman killed? What I take from your post is your blaming the government and the woman killed. Now thats some twisted logic

JS in SD. The story says that he had 10 drinks in 4 hours. Considering even spacing that is just a little over 2 drinks per hour. That is hardly falling down drunk and there is no certainty that at that rate of consumption that the bartender would have been able to tell his state of intoxication. It seems to me that this was really a case of an unsafely modified vehicle and a reckless driver than a clear case of over-serving. I am sorry for the families loss, but I don't think the case for making the bar responsible is that clear cut. I didn't notice that they disclosed his blood alcohol content - did anyone else?

How is the bar supposed to know there isn't a cab or limo waiting? This needs to be over-turned.

steve the admin, per the article: "According to the lawsuit, Crutchfield's blood alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit."

I always heard the rule of thumb was one drink per hour is what he body can safely process. 2.5 drinks per hour would be very risky for anyone planning to drive afterwards. Whether it was obvious that he was that drunk to whoever was serving him is another question though - some people can hold their liquor better than others, for example, and the bar may have been exceptionally busy, and there may have been multiple bartenders serving him, etc. Still, the law says the establishment is ultimately responsible for not serving someone visibly intoxicated.

@ steve the admin...2 drinks an hour isn't falling down drunk?? Seriously?? Dude! Two drinks an hour IS absolutely "falling down drunk". I hope you don't do much driving...

I am sorry for the families loss, but I don't think the case for making the bar responsible is that clear cut. I didn't notice that they disclosed his blood alcohol content - did anyone else?

Couple things here for those who cannot read apparently Quote from the article.

" he was served in excess of 10 drinks and shots while he was in the club." Which means more than ten not ten

"According to the lawsuit, Crutchfield's blood alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit. He is currently serving a nine-year prison sentence for manslaughter."

That solves the mystery about his BAL cause he is in jsil for being drunk and killing someone duuuhhhh

Now as to the quote up top here

When people get certified to sell alcohol, the program stresses the importance of not over-serving, and warns that this can happen. It also tells you most people metabolize alcohol at about one drink per hour. Meaning, within an hour or so, that one drink you had is pretty much out of your system. Now, here's where it gets tricky: some drinks net more than one drink. Meaning, if you have a drink and make it a double, it counts as two drinks. Or say, the drink you had is larger, and had 5 shots in it, it's gonna count as more than one drink. So you can't really say "He had ten drinks". You have to know what alcohol content the drinks had.

Plenty of strip clubs serve no alcohol at all and other than the salacious headline, dram shop cases are not unique at all. Its only unique because as a site run by Progressives they feel the need to cater to the stupid so they create a meaningless headline. It wasn't about a strip club, it was about a bartender serving a drunk, which happens 24/7.

he got behind the wheel of his monster truck and ran over Kasey McKenzie,

As she walked around the parking lot of a strip bar at 2 AM not noticing a huge monster truck approaching her. Was she over served too? The other side of the story could have been she wasn't killed in the parking lot but while DUI caused an accident and killed someone coming home from work. That happens too, and her attorney would be going after her.

We are not suppose to run over pedestrians in parking lots.....I don't understand where you're coming from Dick.

they were having an argument as i recall suing the club will be appealed , they are going after the club because the truck driver is in prison. this went to hell in the parking lot between him and her . lawyers make money no matter what , shame.

they were having an argument as i recall suing the club will be appealed , they are going after the club because the truck driver is in prison. this went to hell in the parking lot between him and her . lawyers make money no matter what , shame.

Strip club, booze, monster truck... what could possibly go wrong?

I agree that you can't always tell how much a person has had to drink just by looking at them. I've know people who, if you hadn't been watching them drink or didn't know them, could not tell that they were drunk. I've also known people who appear (and probably are) very drunk after just one drink (we call those one and done). I have a friend who kind of slurs when he talks sober so he sounds worse than he is after a few drinks. Jessica is correct-not all drinks are created equal, so 1 glass does not automatically equal one drink/serving. The man in this story was obviously very drunk, but he may not have appeared to be. If it was very busy and he was served by multiple people, I certainly see how the bartenders could have missed the signs. You also can't magically tell just by looking at a person if they have a ride or are planning on driving.

That being said, if someone is obviously very/too drunk, bartenders do have a responsibility to stop serving them/bouncer should not allow people in to their establishment if they are already falling down drunk before even entering. And certainly they can offer to call a cab (after asking someone who's closing their tab if they are driving)/reassure people they won't be towed if they leave their cars in the bar parking lot overnight.

This is a shame for the family, and I hope the money helps bring them closure.

I can see both sides of the argument. By law, the bar is responsible. Yes, they served beer to a guy who wanted to continue to drink, and chose to drive away. In that same logic, by assigning blame to those who did nothing to stop him from drinking, the people who observed him leaving and driving away who did nothing should be equally culpable. People who make poor choices in life should not be able to say someone made me this way. People make their own decisions in life. The bar didn't force drinks down his throat. By what the law says (which lawyers helped create) the bar is responsible enough to pay. But what common sense says is that we the people are responsible for our own actions. The guy is in jail for that. But yet, to get closure, the family wanted money. Not from the guy who killed their daughter, but from the place that served drinks. You can't sue a casino from taking your money, why sue a bar for making you drunk? Regardless if they new he was intoxicated.

That could be taken to the next level. Suing whiskey makers for enabling people to drink any entire bottle at one time. It was the person's choice, but the way whiskey pours from a bottle they are just enabling such activities. Just you wait people. That isn't too far off.

Laws like this are absolute insanity. Holding one person for the actions of another.

No one had done anything wrong until Crutchfield got behind the wheel drunk. No one but Crutchfield had control over or was responsible for that single action.

Crutchfield needs to spend his life in prison. 9 years isn't enough. But he's the only person that has any fault in this.

Last I checked people do go to bars to get drunk.

Maybe you do, but most of the people I know go to bars to socialize and maybe have one or two drinks.

The other side of the story could have been she wasn't killed in the parking lot but while DUI caused an accident and killed someone coming home from work.

Well, the guy was convicted of a felony and is serving nine years in prison, so apparently there was enough evidence for a jury to convice him in a criminal case.

Which, by the way, requires a much higher standard of proof than a civil judgment.

Joey-I agree that the man is still responsible for the death of this woman, and his jail sentence is justified. I'm not sure whether or not the bar should have a financial responsibility to the family. As many have pointed out, there are a lot of factors that go into whether or not the bar reasonably would have been able to know (and was in a position to do something about it) that he was for sure leaving and was going to drive, or if he was headed out to get picked up or was going to find a cab. There isn't really enough information in the article for me to make that call.

Here we go, Obama is now going to appoint a strip club czar.

I've been to this same club at least 10 times and have imbibed quite a bit and never hurt or killed anyone. Almost fell in love with those gorgeous Russian's they have dancing there though. Each time I've been there I've called ahead and the Rhino has provided transportation from and to the hotel. How was a bartender or bouncer to know if this guy was driving? Unless he was falling down in the club, he might not have appeared to be out of control.

How much you can drink is a function of training. I know a guy who drinks 2 drink a day, and keeps his blood alcohol at .10%. He is a well trained drinker and he only drinks half gallons of makers mark. But if your a 30 something two drink a week wuss, if you drink two drinks together you are .14%. The good part about suing taverns is the 4 Church ladies on the Jury who think you are in league with the devil if you drink will always vote to make the tavern pay. I think you should have to pay for running people over with a Monster truck. I would want blood in it was my child.

It appears that the impression Mr. Crutchfield was fomenting with respect to his 'monster truck' came to fruition. Another of the legions of 'career children' this country has managed to propagate. A very sad tale about the victim of just another man-child. My sincere sympathies to her family and friends.

Awareness of the consequences of DU's or DW's is have curtailed the restaurant business. It's one of those changes in our society that happens right under your nose - like the ubiquitous cell phone. One morning you wake up and everything is diffferent.

dick:

Would you consider posting a photo of your truck?

Many years ago I used to go out with my drinking buddies on Friday nights. We would take turns buying rounds and I would drink 25 to 35 drinks in the coarse of the night. Mostly beers and maybe a few shots over 6 hours or so. I never fell down or even looked smashed and my friends were drinking just as much as me but that was in my early 20's and I had a high tolerance and was accustomed to Binge drinking. These days I couldn't handle 10 drinks as I haven't had 10 drinks in the last year combined. My point is I never got cut off at any bar because I wasn't visibly drunk, I was drunk but you couldn't tell by looking at or talking to me. I never drove after drinking these amounts but who ever was driving was usually just as drunk as me. I don't see how the bar is responsible for the patrons actions because I know people who act all tipsy after 2 drinks and others who pound down the drinks like I used to and never appear drunk even though they are. I used to go to big Rock Clubs with bands and multiple bars and some had multiple clubs in a complex. In fact that was the name of one place I used to go to "The Complex" It had 5 clubs and 8 bars how could any one keep track of how many drinks anyone had with 2500 people or more ordering drinks at different bars and buying drinks for each other ? Of coarse no matter how drunk we got we didn't drive home in a "Monster Truck".

JS in SD

I disagree, this was a very appropriate ruling. Not everyone who goes out to a bar or club does so to get falling down drunk. When I do go out I rarely have more than a few drinks

Good for you but why is it the businesses job to be your nanny and make sure you only have a few??

What the @!$%# ever happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY??? Now we expect everyone else to take care of us in every possible way. What next?? Sue the guy who built the truck because being so high off the ground made it harder for the driver to see the woman?? If this BS makes sense to someone why the @!$%# not???? In fact why are they even making such large tires for trucks? They aren't needed and likely make an accident more of a possibility...Sue the tire manufacturers while we're at it. Maybe his stereo was turned up so loud that he couldn't hear her if she had yelled...Sue the stereo manufacturer and the installer for making such a loud stereo. And why didn't someone grab her or push her out of the way?...Sue anyone and everyone who may have been in the parking lot at the time.

I'm more amazed that getting drunk as a skunk and mowing someone down is only worth 9 years. I'd figure getting falling down drunk, then murdering someone with my car would call for at least 40 to 60. Then again, life is cheap nowadays.

Just how many drinks in 2 hours will result in a BA level of .08? Not many folks. When will a bar tender in strip club...serving litterally 100's will be able to monitor all the patrons...not possible IMO.

Of course if you over drink you are liable we all know that, but drinking period results in problems for most unless you can go have 1 or 2 drinks only period...I for one and not that person and for that reason I haven't had a drink in 27 years.

So if I weighed three or four hundred pounds and pulled up to a drive through hamburger joint, ordered ten double burgers and died eating the tenth one account of a heart attack from being to fat is the hamburger joint responsible for my death?

Was she just there for the show or was she a stripper at the club?

My dog has a higher IQ ...

I know plenty of people who could drink 10 shots in an hour and pass any drunk driving test with flying colors. It is all about tolerance. I for one couldn't drink more than 4 drinks in 4 hours and be OK to drive, and only if I had food too.

As for the judgement, what is the basis for the 10.5 million? Seriously, if it was to serve as an example or because it was a strip club and not just a bar, then it should be overturned. The guy responsible is behind bars and if the family wants to sue someone, go after him. OK, so you can show that the bar was negligent in serving that many drinks.. aside from the obvious liberal idea of nobody being personally responsible for their actions (the bar obviously made him drunk so it is their fault), how is 10 million dollars justified? Even with a liability issue, the REAL responsible party is the driver, so the pain and suffering are on his shoulders, not the buisiness who sold the alcohol to him legally. The fiscal impact of this young woman losing her life is not 10 million, even if she was a really good stripper. Maybe 1 or 2 million.

I suspect that the jury was biased either against the fact that it is a bar serving alcohol, or more likely a strip club that they would like to see closed, so they went for 10X the amount that it potentially cost the family to lose her from their life. This is a civil case, not legal, so it wasn't about anything other than money. If the family was REALLY concerned about just the loss of her life and wanted someone other than the driver to suffer for it, they would have pushed for a criminal case, but they went for the civil case and for the money. That is all this is about. If they wanted closure and nothing else, they would have only pressed for restitution and a verdict to show that the people were guilty.

First I want to say that the Earth will probably end tomorrow because I find myself agreeing with JS from SD but that aside it clearly says that he appeared obviously intoxicated in surveillance video and that his blood alcohol level was twice the legal limit. Those people who are saying it should only be about personal responsibility do you think that if a dealer sells heroin to someone and they OD that the dealer should not be responsible for their death?

So if I weighed three or four hundred pounds and pulled up to a drive through hamburger joint, ordered ten double burgers and died eating the tenth one account of a heart attack from being to fat is the hamburger joint responsible for my death?

The fact that you ate a burger isn't going to alter the functioning of your brain and increase the likelihood of you causing an accident or killing someone. Unless there's something unusual in your burger?

Joe F Las Vegas

Those people who are saying it should only be about personal responsibility do you think that if a dealer sells heroin to someone and they OD that the dealer should not be responsible for their death?

Yes. I'm pretty sure we can find someone to "blame" for every death, are you saying that we should go down that road? Maybe we should just have the government appoint us all a personal nanny to ensure we don't do anything risky of our own free will.

Everyone knows (or should) that drunk driving can easily lead to accidents and death. If you drink and drive you know you have increased that likelihood. The bartender (if it's clear you are drunk) is also aware of this fact and so is pretty much an accessory to whatever happens.

This might not be the greatest analogy, it's as good as I can think of right now so I'll go with it... what if someone went to buy a gun, ranting and raving about how they were going to shoot someone. If the dealer sells them the gun, he knows there is a good chance that person will actually go on and kill, using the gun they sold to them, so he should be held liable (in part) for that reason. For providing them with the means. And this doesn't take away from the fact that the person doing the killing is the one ultimately responsible.

If they want to curb drunk driving then all bars should have a 2 drink maximum. Of course they want to keep people there as long as they can to get maximum money out of the drunks (I mean people). I wonder how much the drunk paid? probably not one cent over the minimum insurance policy he had. He should be held liable to the bar's insurance company for at least half of the money.

Those people who are saying it should only be about personal responsibility do you think that if a dealer sells heroin to someone and they OD that the dealer should not be responsible for their death?

Taking away the fact that heroin is illegal, no I wouldn't agree. Doing something to harm yourself is one thing, giving someone the means to harm someone else is another.

The law needs to be changed. People go to the bar to get intoxicated and it should not be up to the bartenders to decide when someone should be cut off from drinks as long as they are not making a scene. The bartender may be told that the individual is not driving afterwards and then does. The "legal" limit for being drunk is not enough to indicate to the bartender that a person may be drunk. In most cases people are sitting at the bar, so you cannot tell if they can walk a straight line. Bartenders do not give out sobriety tests and they do not have breath analyzers. To me, this law is just stupid, It is just a way for lawyers to sue more people. The person who ran over someone while intoxicated should be the only one responsible, otherwise then they should be able to sue the alcohol producer as well. This would be the same as suing a gun seller who sold someone a gun and shot someone, why not the manufacture as well?

People go to the bar to get intoxicated

I don't know about you, but I regularly go just for 1 or 2. Sometimes I go to play quizzo. Sometimes I go to watch a match, with my friends. The drinking (and getting drunk) is often incidental. And I don't drive there.

The "legal" limit for being drunk is not enough to indicate to the bartender that a person may be drunk. In most cases people are sitting at the bar, so you cannot tell if they can walk a straight line. Bartenders do not give out sobriety tests and they do not have breath analyzers.

This would be why it goes to a trial, to determine if they could reasonably have known.

The person who ran over someone while intoxicated should be the only one responsible, otherwise then they should be able to sue the alcohol producer as well. This would be the same as suing a gun seller who sold someone a gun and shot someone, why not the manufacture as well?

If the gun seller knows they are going to use it for a crime, then they should be held responsible. In the same way nobody can plead ignorance to the fact that someone who drinks and drives is a danger to other people. If you serve someone knowing they are already drunk and are going to drive you are knowingly enabling them.

A gun manufacturer is not in the same position.

Rob80-4249854

Everyone knows (or should) that drunk driving can easily lead to accidents and death. If you drink and drive you know you have increased that likelihood. The bartender (if it's clear you are drunk) is also aware of this fact and so is pretty much an accessory to whatever happens.

You're right, that was a horrible analogy because the bartender has no way of knowing the drunk will get into a car after he LEAVES the bar.

You're right, that was a horrible analogy because the bartender has no way of knowing the drunk will get into a car after he LEAVES the bar.

That just explains why they leave nothing to chance and don't serve ANYONE who appears to be drunk.

A million's not enough? Two million maybe? You have to award this family over ten million dollars? Hell, why not just make it a hundred million?

If I were a defense lawyer I'd ask one question during the sitting of the jury: "Do you consider yourself liberal or conservative?"

If they said liberal I'd tell them to get the f..ck out!

Probably not an allowable question but it makes me feel better to believe that maybe it is.

Did any of you who are arguing about how much someone can drink without appearing drunk actually read this :

"Schmidt showed jurors surveillance video of Crutchfield drinking inside the club that night.

"We believe that obviously he was intoxicated; it was apparent to the bartender and the club that he was intoxicated, and he got behind the wheel of his monster truck and ran over Kasey McKenzie," Schmidt said."

Try reading the article before commenting.

Rob80-4249854

That just explains why they leave nothing to chance and don't serve ANYONE who appears to be drunk.

No what that explains is why this is wrong. People need to be responsible for their own actions not those of others. Had the bartender served him so much alcohol that he was poisoned by it and died you can blame the bartender. What the bartender did here harmed NO ONE!

Backcountry - Don't try using perfectly sound logic on liberals, especially when it concerns the concept of personal accountability which, as we all know, is a completely foreign concept to them.

Why do drunk drivers always seem to be driving the largest vehicles on the road. If he had been driving a little economy car she'd probably still be alive. Don't drink and drive, but if you must drive a scooter.

Weak argument. The time frame is not the same as someone taking a bottle home, and the bar is in the business of serving drinks, and it is THEIR personal responsibility to make sure they cut people off, who are already drunk.

It is simple, whether you agree with it or not: EVERY bar knows that they have a legal responsibility to ensure they do not over serve. This is the law virtually everywhere, and they ignored it, and a woman lost her life so it is time to pay up.

If you don't like the law, feel free to change it.

draconian, i totally agree with you. when are people going to take accoutablity for there own actions.?? its everyones fault but your own.? america has become so sue happy, for what , money? is that whats important in life,? its ok if some one deliberatly harms you, but accidents do happen, to the innocent. and those causing the harm should be the ones repsonsible for there action.

nice try but fail. when you are legally drunk you are incapable of making a rational decision, thus it is the responcibility of the club to make sure you don't drink and drive. see how it works? oh wait, your drunk, never mind.

I agree with you draconian. If the bar is busy, how can the bartender/waitress be accountable for any one that gets drunk? What is the bar now? Baby sitters? Some people can hold booze better than others. Whats next? White line on the floor that you have to walk to get a drink? You can't blame everybody. Be accountable.

Please it is the responsibility of the people who run these places to not let people walk out of them falling down drunk. We all have limits and they along with us have responsebilities in the process. They only have to stop serving when a person appears to be already drunk! They are not supposed to continue to serve people after they appear that way. Had the bartender refused him service and made it clear they would not have to pay.

We ARE accountable for ourselves. But I've been consuming alcohol for 40 years but don't go to a bar to get stinking drunk. It's a social event. Anyone living in bars to get drunk has other issues. Maybe we should raise the bar, no pun intended, for accountability. Drunk in public... a year in the slammer. Drunk driving? 10 years first offense. Mandatory. Let's see how responsible folks get then.

The man who drove drunk is not the one suing the bar. I agree that that would be ridiculous since he needs to take responsibility for his own actions. The girl didn't really have any actions to be held responsible for other than being the wrong place at the wrong time.

Agreed, its the same failed logic that has people blaming guns for gun violence, utensils for obesity and any other excuse to point the finger outward. There is no more personal responsibility/accountability in America anymore, everyone is the victim, maybe the driver can sue his monster truck for being so big it ran over a person sounds like a case a lawyer would take.

The girl didn't really have any actions to be held responsible for other than being the wrong place at the wrong time.

And yet we already have some people posting here that it was at least partially her fault for being there. See Posts 1.17 and 4 for examples.

The "Monster" truck headline is deceptive. A "monster" truck is not street legal. Was the headline was written by the same person who calls all rifles "assault" rifles?

The unsung theme song of the American Bar Association is "There isn't a profit in personal responsibility" It's time to bump the unemployment level of opportunistic lawyers. Unfortunately we've become a society of irresponsible opportunists, just looking for our winning "lottery ticket'. In the immortal words of a prominent liberal, "Never let a good crisis go to waste", has become the progressive mantra. Next election take a look at the campaign signs posted in front of law offices, then vote for the other guy/gal!

Thomas Jefferson-380547

nice try but fail. when you are legally drunk you are incapable of making a rational decision, thus it is the responcibility of the club to make sure you don't drink and drive. see how it works? oh wait, your drunk, never mind.

Change you @!$%#ing screen name NOW! Because you have NO CLUE who the hell Thomas Jefferson was!

Let's just hold everyone else accountable for our actions.

If I want to go to a bar and drink until I am literally blind - it isn't my fault - it's their fault. Sure!

Erm, the guy who ran her over is serving a prison sentence, so he HAS been held accountable. The bar is now being held accountable for their part.

Rob80-4249854

Erm, the guy who ran her over is serving a prison sentence, so he HAS been held accountable. The bar is now being held accountable for their part.

What I'd like to know is how the manufacturer of the booze he was drinking managed to avoid any responsibility. Not to mention the company who made the glasses or bottles that it was served in.

Oh...wait, that sounds as stupid as holding the bar accountable for the actions of the customer.

What I'd like to know is how the manufacturer of the booze he was drinking managed to avoid any responsibility. Not to mention the company who made the glasses or bottles that it was served in.

Because there is no definite connection between the bottle of booze and the person being drunk. As in the manufacturer has no control over what you do (how much you drink) or where you do it. You can have 1 drink at a bar, or 20 at home. You can be responsible with their product, or not.

The bar DOES have control over what someone can drink, at THEIR establishment.

Rob80-4249854

The bar DOES have control over what someone can drink, at THEIR establishment.

Right up to the point that they walk out the door. What had this guy done that was in any way wrong prior to that point??? Before he LEFT the bar he was not a danger to anyone. If the bartender had handed the guy keys to a car you'd have a valid point but all he did was serve him booze. That action, in and of itself, did not cause a problem for anyone.

OkJerkNow, lets blame the victim also.

Still, how does a presumably sober young woman not manage to avoid getting run over by a monster truck in a parking lot? A perfectly reasonable question. . .

Actually, if she walked out into traffic on her phone, that would be her fault. If the guy that ran her over was sober, would he be in prison?

I was wondering the same thing though. What was this lady, who's life is worth 10.5 million dollars, doing in a strip club parking lot...

Sean

Maybe looking to get in her car like the rest of the people in parking lots DUHHHH

Guy starts his car. Puts it in reverse. Mixes up his brake and his gas. Slams into the girl who didn't even have time to react. That's one possible scenario.

smb:

Would her life be of a different value if she'd been run over by a drunk in a church parking lot?

Gee now it's the ladies fault, first it was the bars fault, what happened to the guy that caused it all in the first place, drank to much, got in his truck and ran over a pedestrian who happened to be a lady?

The bar should counter sue her parents. If they had been good parents and not raised a stripper, she would have never been in the parking lot.

Way to make an assumption. She was there with friends, apparently. Not a stripper.

4.4 What was this lady, who's life is worth 10.5 million dollars, doing in a strip club parking lot..."

Just getting off work? 100k/year for 10.5 years isn't unusual earnings for a good stripper career!

Your math is off by a factor of ten. 100k x 10.5 years +1million, 50thousand dollars, not 10.5 million..

that would be 100k for a 105 years........

Damb, dropped a zero.LOL Looks like the family is suing for 10 times the value and hoping for a quick settlement. Plus, the lawyers have to get their pound of flesh. No amount of money is going to bring her back though.

But why wouldn't the dramshop law apply to pedestrians as well? Drunk is drunk and - as all the paranoiacs on the newsvine never tire of reminding us - hazards are all around us. . . open manholes, subway platforms, speeding buses, muggers, rapists, con men, psychopathic killers, ad nauseam. . .

I thought monster trucks are for off road use. Was it some truck jump contest or something? Monster trucks are hard to steer & control even when the driver is sober.

I've gone to bars before with friends and only had soda to drink.

I've gone to bars before with friends and only had soda to drink.

As have I. I'm generally the designated driver.

The ciggaret manufactures were held responsible for smokers dieing.So alcohol manufactures should be lible,since alcohol causes deaths quicker than ciggarets!!

real class .....before we had DUI laws, before the governmtne wanted to """regulate""" eachand every thing you do ...there wasn't a problem???

Just ask anyone who lost a family member in a accident where drinking was involved if its not a problem.

Before we had DUI laws? Are you not aware that DUI laws extend back to horse and carriage? Hell, we even had U.S. Presidents get convicted of DUI before being elected as early as the 1840s. You might want to brush up on your history a bit there. In most civilized countries they use the bartender as the buffer between a person and irresponsible drinking. It's such a well-known fact that, in the UK, it has been proposed more than once that drinking should be made illegal anywhere else other than a pub because the rate of drinking related crimes and deaths is far lower due to the control that a responsible bartender can have over the consumption of each individual and the fact that he can call a taxi for them if they cannot drive.(The roads there are far more narrow and curve more often and more sharply and have higher speed limits. Driving drunk there can be particularly treacherous, even if there are no other cars around.) Bars, taverns, and pubs are a social institution in this country for the same reason that prohibition failed and the same reason they're successful everywhere else in the world: drinking there, under the watchful eye of a responsible bartender, is far safer than drinking where no one is watching.

Ben-B - It's fairly amusing to me that someone would complain about DUI laws in the US actually, because I'm from the UK and I find that the laws are less strict and people drive drunk here much more, IMO because it's more socially acceptable. Also because so many more people live in areas they can't get to a pub/bar without their car.

Smitty if a person is killed a person is killed. What does it matter if they are killed by a person who's drunk or sober ? I never get it when people start with that stuff.

CP133 - Because drinking and driving implies negligence. You are knowingly putting yourself in a situation where you are more likely to cause an accident. Mistakes and accidents happen, but with drinking and driving it makes the whole thing sadder and more unnecessary.

10.5m does seem ridiculous, actually.

She wasn't a stripper though. Apparently there with friends. Read one of the linked stories and you'll find that out, plus the fact he tried to leave the scene and they were looking into the legality of his truck.

...then don't open a bar if it's not gonna make you money...

It's the "Obama Syndrome"..... blame someone else....

Bartenders have both a moral and legal obligation to refuse service to people who are either drunk already when they arrive or have become drunk while being served. It's a safety issue. It prevents binge drinking (which can kill you all on it's own), and lowers the incidence of DUI. They also have a moral and legal obligation to offer to get you a taxi if you try to leave said establishment when you are clearly intoxicated. It's part of the job description. Bartenders are care takers, otherwise you could easily just pour your own drinks or buy them pre-mixed out of a vending machine like you do everything else. If they're not going to protect people from themselves, they're failing to do the one thing that puts them above a vending machine. (Lord knows, the vending machine would be cheaper.)

realclass:

Compelling argument? Just a few too many 'dumbazzes!!!!, I'm afraid. Rants are rants, nothing more.

But don't you, a bartender or anyone.. tell ME what to do.

Why, what exactly are you going to do if they refuse you for being drunk or (and this seems likely given your rant) abusive? Or both?

I like the idea that a bar with a maximum occupancy of 50 employs 10 dancers and a band, btw. Doesn't sound much like any bar I've been to.

And, here's a novel idea... if you want to go to a bar and get drunk, DON'T DRIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sally, while I agree about the frivolous lawsuits - a real problem in our country - your analogy isn't really apt. People can become obese for a variety or reasons, including genetic as well as poor diet and exercise regimens, but no one enters a restaurant trim and fit and emerges a few hours later in a pre-diabetic, grossly overweight condition. A person can, however enter a bar completely sober and after a few hours be falling-down drunk, and in no shape to even tend to themselves much less operate a vehicle.

sallyann:

Thanks for bringing civility to the discussion. Many of these posts lack 'real class'.

It's kind of the same logic behind the tobacco lawsuits brought on by the states. Since 1964, 49 years ago, all cigarette packs had a warning that smoking may cause cancer. Anyone who started smoking in or after 1964 was warned and chose to ignore the warning and take their chances. The states come along and sue the tobacco companies on behalf of the "victims" for the costs of treating the people that chose to ignore the warnings. And they won.

Now, using this very same logic couldn't a person driving down the road and approaching a 25 MPH curve that is clearly marked with a yellow sign with a curved arrow and a sign below clearly saying 25 MPH who decides to ignore the warning and take the curve at 60 MPH and wrecks. Couldn't this driver sue the state for putting the curve in the road in the first place ? That's exactly what the states did in these tobacco lawsuits. There was a product that carried a clear warning that people used anyway and the states sued and won. Ridiculous.

I don't believe there is enough information in this article to make an informed judgement. If both parties were drunk why would only one be at fault ? It's like if two drunk drivers run into each other they both are at fault by law because neither one of them should have been on the road drunk. We don't know the condition of the lady at the time. Granted pedestrians have the right of way, but step off the curb into traffic against the light and see who is at fault, it's not the driver that hits you.

WRONG!

We have laws for a REASON! A drunk person isn't a threat to themselves so much as they are a threat to others. It's irresponsible to the PUBLIC to keep serving a drunk person!

Keep feeding a clearly fat person is only adding to THEIR problems! It's CLEARLY different. We have liquor licenses for a reason and we have laws regarding alcohol for those same reasons. Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death in America and the laws regarding it's use and sale are put in place to protect OTHERS, not the person drinking.

This is all coming from someone that LOVES to have a drink or 5!!!

And the death rate related to alcohol continues to rise as the age of the user gets younger and younger.

Wow, ramble much? I have trouble decoding your crap. Slow down, type slowly, try to complete a thought before bouncing to the next one. If you do, it might appear that you are writing something worth reading. As of right now, I just see a ton of posts by you with no real meaning (besides the fact that you seem to be a real douche).

@Real Class - Member since Fed 2013

DNFTT

Leave the gun.... EXACTLY, you are exactly right!!!!!

Poor analogy, the gun-maker makes the gun the bar merely serves the drinks. To make your analogy work, her family would have had to sue Jim Beam. Not saying nobody has ever tried it, just that nobody has ever successfully done so. Bars have a legal obligation to refuse service to drunk patrons. Bartenders are taught this when learning the job. It's why bars exist, because when bars were illegal it actually made the problem worse and not better.

Alcohol Manufactures have been sued, but there is to much money, legal power and politics involved, making any successful lawsuit against them impossible to win.

OK, OK, we're convinced. Obama and the embassy?

I've been to bars and clubs hundreds of times and believe it or not, I've never killed or hurt anyone.

"Bars are death joints". Lol. You always come across a couple in these comments.

So, how does legal professional like a USA government judge in civil court expect to invoke "dram shop" doctrine as fairness of Law while expecting business people to be fair?

And then making headline news with it like USA government judge is immune to fair conduct?

So, with your logic the police should be held accountable for every murder that takes place. If a thug kills someone with a gun you want to hold the police accountable for not stopping him before he kills?

Did the bar see him falling down drunk, no. Did they know if he was getting into a limo, cab, riding with someone else, no. It's a shame this happened, but you'd have to shut down every bar in the country if they were held accountable.

You kidding me right??? How about we sue everyone! Is that your solution???

MoreJustice...you are a complete idiot. So the police are supposed to do sobriety checks on everyone who leaves a bar?

Go drink some more of that "it's everybody else's fault except mine" kool-aid...it's doing you a world of good to make you look completely f*cking stupid.

Nobody is saying you can't get drunk. Nobody is saying you can't go to a strip joint. What the court IS saying is you can't go to a club, get drunk, get behind the wheel of a truck and kill someone. I don't care what anybody drinks or does for entertainment. What I DO care about is life, limb and public saftey. It is a shame even this ruling can't restore a beautiful girl to life. How many lives have been destroyed because of this wreckless act? Incredibly sad....