So servers have a duty to make sure that once a patron becomes intoxicated, they don't serve them anymore alcohol. They may sometimes also have to take other precautions like calling a cab for them and making sure they have a way of getting home safe.

Umm, the last time I checked the whole point of having a business is to MAKE MONEY.

I don't see fast food workers turning away fat people because they don't want them to get heart attacks and die after eating food from there.

And yeah I know drunk people can hurt other people, but that's not the point I'm making.

First of all when you're sober and if you haven't made plans to get home safely, you're a dumb *beep*

Staff members at bars should not be in legal trouble because of the actions a drunk person makes.

It's disgusting that people are never held responsible for their own actions.

Humm this has been the law for as long as I can remember.... I was a Bartender 37 years ago and this is how it was then.

In no way does taking responsibility to make sure your customers do not over indulge take away from a business owner... It only protects them.

Sure adults need to be responsible for their own actions... But since people have been drinking liquor there has always been a need for others to step in when they get past that point...

But to say that people are not held responsible for their actions again is false....

I would rather that business look out for their customers then let them hit the road knowing they can not drive....

Facts are facts...guess till you have had a family member killed by a drunk driver or someone you know you will not see the need for business owners to step up and help prevent what could have happened..

I don't see the need to throw the fat card in there is no comparison between those that are over weight and those that drink.. Not all over weight people are that way due to they over indulge..

Personal responsibility. People do things and want to blame any one but themselves. While it is admirable that a bar employee says, "hey, buddy, you've had enough", I disagree that they should have a LEGAL obligation to do so. The law is flawed.

Overindulgence is set at a 0.08%. To the AVERAGE person, that is anything more than ONE drink per hour (making it a double exceeds this limit). Perhaps the law should mandate that a patron cannot be served more than that amount if bars are to be held accountable for the actions of others. Won't work as the vast majority of people go to bars to get "happy" and act a little silly at a minimum.

Despite all the PSA's and MADD campaigning, I would estimate that at least 90% of the people that drive away from any bar on any given night have a BAC above the established legal limit. While I am not making mockery of people killed by drunk drivers, I will mention that many people are killed by sleepy drivers but we don't sue their employer for having made them work overtime. (And I know someone that was arrested and convicted of Driving While Impaired for drowsy driving).

Better law: Require bar owners to employ a designated driver or contract with a cab company to OFFER all patrons transportation home. If the patron refuses, there ends the night club's responsibility.

Cameras that already record door activity can capture doormen making the offer as patrons exit and their responses. Going to court against patrons to recover cab fares is a small price compared to that of joining him/her at the defendant's table.

Sounds good doesn't it? Until unscrupulous employees or cabbies take advantage of intoxicated patrons and start bringing liability for THEIR actions on the club owners. We need to be honest and face the truth that this issue is based on monetary gain and not culpability.

There is no "right" answer except for personal responsibility.

Just a regular feller's opinion.

I've been in the industry about 15yrs (but I'm back in the auto industry currently), I did recently do licensing refreshers, you have to study the current laws as part of that.

Basically, the venue proprietary gets fined 6-figures and the bartender who served an intoxicated person gets fined 5-figures. It's mandatory sentencing, so excuses like the boss instructed you to serve the intoxicated person, too bad.

It is a pain in the butt for bartenders because the OP is correct, licenced venues want to make money, they don't do that by turning customers away, often the venue senior staff will try to please customers rather than contribute to any altercation, so especially when patrons become drunken and rowdy, they get aggressive and irrational, the senior supervisors let them run the show all the more in an avoidance protocol. It actually takes bouncers on the floor to change that, and bartenders have to individually sequester their assistance with any patrons they refuse service, which become irate.

In effect by making it illegal of the bartender and not his senior supervisors for him to serve intoxicated patrons, you may just be making criminals of people which simply need their job so badly they must follow any instructions from a superior.
But to be legal what the bartender must do is tell the boss to shove it up his backside and make the calls on service refusal himself, under his own judgement and authority. And the law does give him this right, but it may lose him his job.

That's how it plays down.

Having been in the biz for 20 yrs I agree with you to a certain extent. Its called the dram shop act.People should be responsible for their own choices and many frivolous lawsuits have been filed and won. However some people go to bars and truly over indulge on accident, they are having fun with friends being coaxed into doing another shot then bam they are over their limit. Here in Myrtle Beach cabs are readily available and some clubs have a bus that rides patrons to their lounge and for a price will give everyone a ride back to the hotel, also public transportation is available .So we don't have the dramshop act if you get behind the wheel of a car after being hammered then the weight falls on you,. Its a double edged sword for sure you offer a cab and they refuse, you try other options and they refuse, you are not allowed to physically restrain them so when they get into their car the only thing you can do is call the law and hope they don't kill someone until they get pulled over but then they can sue you. On this point I agree with you.

Mmhmm. And obviously if someone is VERY drunk I wouldn't serve them. If I don't feel uncomfortable around them I may try to call a cab for them or something. But I shouldn't be REQUIRED to. The fact that if someone is the least bit tipsy I cannot serve them anymore alcohol is ridiculous.

I am thinking about the liability of that waiter at the mexican restaurant I went to, I think he needs to buy me some new pants.

I owned a bar. It is my responsibility to make money but not at the expense of someone losing their life. Greedy

I work in the bar business years ago and the laws that make me responsible for the actions of other grown adults is exactly why I got out of the business.

In my clubs I refused to have a drink minimum and insisted that anyone served over two had to be given a food menu which meant the hostess was slowing down the serving and keeping an eye on things but some people come through the door loaded on anything from mouthwash, to personal booze, to pills so people can be under the influence by a lot of sources.

Way I looked at it I did not get them there and I wasn't getting them home.

I did not buy free drinks and the fastest way to get immediately fired was for any of the staff to. Or drink on duty.

We had a really big sign right at the front door that anyone who got out of control would be tossed out and that was literally applied. One thing about gossip is it spreads better than the radio. You physically toss a couple of people out of your business most, not all, low life's look for easier targets.

Of course that was back in the day when you could actually control how someone acted in your business and the courts backed you up; no if's, but's, or maybe's.

Well technically all legislation involving the term "intoxicated" is extremely interpretive and designed to be that way.

Under the letter of the law, how many people here can answer, what is an intoxicated person? When is a bar patron intoxicated in a legal definition?

Answer, strict law as written: When they have had one drink.

Anyone who has put any alcohol or other intoxicant in their body in any amount, is by law, intoxicated. The rub comes in how intoxicated are they? Too intoxicated to drive a car? That's impaired judgement, not intoxication. Intoxication is any amount of an intoxicant in your body.

The law is written this way on purpose. It's like a legal "code".

It gives the right for licensed venues to refuse service to any patron using their own personal judgement. If it later turns out that a patron refused service for (excessive) intoxication actually only had one drink, but was intellectually retarded and seemed drunk, he still cannot sue the venue or its staff because he did have one drink, and that legally makes him intoxicated even where is normal judgement isn't impaired.

So the whole trick comes down to personal judgement. Half the time you're actually getting rid of trouble-makers or aggressive patrons using intoxication laws, they probably act like that all the time but they had a drink so you can remove them.

This is how it's designed to work.

In my province, workers need a SmartServe certificate in order to serve alcohol. Security guards at licensed venues such a stadiums need to have it, too. Anyway, my friend recently attended the class to get his certificate and he had to watch some videos. He told me that in one of the videos two patrons were being rowdy and weren't complying with the bouncer's order to leave. He grabbed one of their arms pretty gently to get them to leave and it ended to hitting something and because of that he (and the bar) would have been sued and lost his job. WTF?!?!?!

To be fair, bouncers used to warn an ex of mine, that he wouldn't be allowed in their nightclub, if they saw he had a bit much to drink. My ex always took it personally, and told me to follow him to other pubs, to try and get more alcohol. I used to tell him there was a reason they turned us away from their pub/club. That made him take it in, that maybe we should go home, as he wasn't getting anywhere. It made me look as bad as him, just by being with him, when it happened. Got sick of playing nurse. The more drunk he got, the more he'd stroke my face. . I guess it depends where you go for nights out. Not all staff are soft. And damn right. Maybe if supermarkets, pubs, and clubs, make alcohol way more expensive, people would stop harming others. Just because Mike has an addiction, gives him no excuse to hurt my brother.

In Australia we have a ubiquitous federal law called "Duty of Care" which means everybody has a duty of care towards others and the community; if you witness a person in forseeable risk you must act, as Breach in Duty of Care in a criminal offence.

Rendering aid to an injured person or accident victim is duty of care, people who drive past an accident without rendering aid are in breach and committing an indictable criminal offence, which can have very severe penalties.

Bar and security staff are bound by Duty of Care to render aid to someone drunk enough to be in forseeable risk to themselves, which means by law you have to call them a cab, or help them down the stairs.
In our course training they told a case example where a security worker was prosecuted for manslaughter under breach in duty of care, because a person he evicted for drunkeness fell down the stairs and later died, the family just didn't want to let it go, the bouncer was prosecuted on the basis the man was in forseeable risk and he should've called him a cab and helped him down the iron staircase to ground level. Instead he basically tossed the guy out for rowdy drunkeness and he fell down the stairs and died. Duty of Care is the law that lets the courts do that, and prosecute you fairly I might add, for being an idiot and having a fit of apathy basically.

But it means bar staff have the same responsibility under law. Always better to cut off a table's drinks or ask an individual to leave long before they complete getting blind drunk. It's just that you kind of have to do that or you're in big risk of being slapped with a serious indictable offence.

It was also explained at bar course, if someone you've been feeding drinks all night gets pulled over out the front and blows many times the legal limit (0.05% BAC), the bartender who served them gets a $12,000 fine and the venue gets a $60,000 fine, mandatory. It is illegal to serve 'intoxicated persons' although you have to use your own judgement about identifying one. That's in addition to Duty of Care.

I understand Duty of Care to a certain point. Those fines are ludicrous! I would love it if we were still in an era of prohibition. Alcohol is more dangerous than marijuana (not that I condone smoking it for non-medical purposes), so why is alcohol regulated and sold? The reason alcohol is legal to drink and is socially acceptable is because it is in liquid form and it is normal to drink. We drink water, juice, and other stuff. It is not normal to smoke or snort something up your nose or inject something into your body other than insulin at home or something else at the doctor's office or hospital. Anyways, the world would be a better place without alcohol.

I agree

as a barkeep I just cut the f@ckers off

w/e

I agree it is not the bar's fault if some a-hole does not have a DD

Patrons who refuse to follow the rules should be banned from buying alcohol in their Province/State.

Long time, no see.

Great topic.

It's not polite to talk about personal respsibilty in front of liberals.

well said! I was a cocktail waitress years ago and we had to cut people off. Businesses make money responsibly to remain responsible corporate citizens

A server can personally drive a drunk person home and tuck them into bed but if that drunk person wakes up in the middle of the night and decides to drive and they end up killing somebody, that server is still responsible. Their liability ends only when the drunk person is no longer drunk. It's ridiculous!!!

Becoming intoxicated is a lot different than eating a freaking burger! You don't become violent or boysterous from eating fast food.