Posted on 04/18/2006 8:20:35 AM PDT by CedarDave
An Albuquerque bar and a bartender are in trouble for selling alcohol to two intoxicated men who were killed when a drunken driver crashed into the taxi cab they were riding in.
Ray Martinez, 50, and Kenneth Martinez, 36, had been at Malarky's before calling the cab to take them home. They and cab driver Daniel Magnuson, 46, were killed when a drunken driver ran a red light and collided with the cab before dawn on Thanksgiving Day.
The Special Investigations Division of the state Department of Public Safety announced Monday it has cited Malarky's for selling to intoxicated persons under the state Liquor Control Act. Bartender Mary Lotspeich was also cited for the same offense.
Division investigators said toxicology reports show one of the two passengers in the cab had a blood-alcohol content of 0.298 percent, more than twice the standard of 0.14 percent used to support the charge of selling to an intoxicated person.
The other passenger had a blood-alcohol content of 0.12 percent, according to investigators.
The division had previously cited the Horse & Angel Tavern for over-serving Gabriel Gurule, the driver of the vehicle that crashed into the cab. Toxicology tests showed Gurule's blood-alcohol content was more than twice the legal limit of 0.08 percent. Gurule pleaded no contest in March to three counts of homicide by motor vehicle and one count of great bodily injury.
(Excerpt) Read more at abqjournal.com ...
common law. bars are responsible for their customers (stupid, just like blaming the gun in a suicide) until they are sober. this was a huge issue that caused a lot of aggravation when i was bartending at a hotel, people would complain that i should be able to serve them until they were absolutely smashed because they were staying there. i had to explain, on numerous occasions (as i cut them off), that if they injured themselves, i faced the possibility of being held resposible.
what i find unsual about this case is not that they are being charged, but that its the state that's going after them. usually this is something that the victim or their family would pursue in civil suit.
I was a volunteer serving beer at Oysterfest, a giantic drink and drown for collegiates sponsored by alumni. I had to tell one girl I was not willing to pay $1000 fine for serving a minor. This was after she claimed to have no ID other than her empty beer cup! ;o)
I told her to go back to the same place for her refill. Never had trouble with the guys.
i usually tell minors that i will be happy to serve them, for an $8.7million tip.
i figure that would cover my fine, and cover all wages and tips that i'd ever earn from working in bars for the rest of my life- because if i get caught serving a minor, i'll never be able to bartend again.
I see that you are not a beer jockey but a total pro. I think your response is legitimate and I'd bet my next brewski I'd never get a flat lager in your bar!
Did you read this article? It has nothing to do with tort law.
Excellent analysis.
Somewhere there's a lawyer reading this an salivating - and trying to figure out how to call you!
You must be the same "Frou" posting on Bobby Eberle's site?
Interesting. My first micro was a raspberry brewed in Utah and that they don't export except to CO and AZ, I think. Ghastly head, and me too, later!
Crisp Miller Lite. Call me old-fashioned.
Not anymore. But if you want to use that name there, you should be okay as long as you use a different password! LOL!
Marching.
Same way in most of this nation, you simply need the right incident to trigger this kind of respons.
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted and you create a nation of law-breakers and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." ('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
NM has a .00 DWI law.
So does your state.
It's only a matter of attracting attention from the right enforcer.
Remember where we live. Nothing is too strange for NM.
True. Thank MADD.
Any judge should dismiss, failing that a jury should nullify.
Nice theory, but MADD has courtroom and case "observers" in nearly every courtroom in this country every day, thereby preventing this from happening.
The perpetrator was a young, relatively inexperienced driver. This is one factor that was avoidable also.
Because of the pressure to classify every "crash" as "alcohol-related", thereby creating a demand for more and strict laws.
By the way, they used to be called "accidents", which connotes an air of unavoidability.
Now they're called "crashes" which creates an opportunity for legislation against a perceived cause.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.