Posted on 08/03/2006 11:38:33 AM PDT by JZelle
TRENTON, N.J. (AP) -- An appeals court on Thursday overturned a landmark $105 million verdict against a stadium vendor that sold beer to a drunken fan who later paralyzed a girl in an auto wreck.
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.washingtontimes.com ...
But the John Edwards-style attorney didn't sue the bars that served him, nor a friend who gave him some more alcohol that night.
He sued Aramark because he knew that Aramark alone had millions that could be legally extorted.
Only if he's got the deepest pockets around!
Responsibilty falls squarely on the drunkard not the vendor. I can't believe we actually need to debate this.
The drunk crippled the girl, not the beer vendor.
Much as I hate Aramark ("Setting up vending monopolies to overcharge you" -- they had the contract at my university), the fact that this even got to an appeals court should result in immediate impeachment of the judge in question.
Don't most stadiums quit selling beer after the 3rd quarter anyway?
the beer vendor assisted him - you can't expect a drunk person to be able to make a decision to stop - he's drunk after all - so the vendor can't just keep selling him more and more and then say "hey, its not my fault".
there is going to be a new trial here, Aramark will lose again. while the punititive portion of the damages are too high and not warranted, the compensatory part is.
it should not be sold throughout the entire game.
I've was at Giants stadium a few years ago, the number of people who are VISIBILY drunk, getting into their cars and leaving the parking lot - is unbelievable.
the alternative is - the taxpayers will pay for her care. the guy who injured her had only $200K in insurance.
Why not sue the man's parents for birthing him?
The courts have repeatedly ruled that being drunk is no excuse for your criminal actions, despite your attempt to claim otherwise.
the guy is in jail, we aren't talking about the criminal aspect of this case. we are talking about the civil liability.
The fact that he has no money to pay damages should have absolutely no bearing on whether the beer vendor should have to pay the girl's bills. It's completely irrelevant to the liability of the beer vendor.
"the beer vendor assisted him - you can't expect a drunk person to be able to make a decision to stop"
The rule is can't serve to an "obviously intoxicated person."
There are two ways to know this:
1. Count drinks (possible in a restaurant and SOME bar settings --- not ones with multiple bars)
2. Observation. It is hard to tell when someone is drunk. They could be deaf and slur speech. They could be handicapped. Or they could be an alcoholic who can sit there and look perfectly steady at you and still blow a .25 BAC.
Here, TWO bars served this guy after he left. That means, he got past TWO sets of bouncers (typically cops) whose job it is to keep out drunks. He walked out of the stadium past who-knows-how-many cops whose job it is to arrest publically intoxicated people.
But, no, the college guy wandering the stands with beer should be the gatekeeper.
GMAFB
fine, sue the two bars also.
and I have been to games there - I didn't see the police approach anyone who appears to be drunk in the parking lot after the game. its like the 55MPH speed limit, there are so many people breaking the law - the police just stopped trying to enforce it.
Let me guess. You're a Baptist and think alcohol is the drink of the Devil.
And Christ didn't create wine at Cana, it was grape juice.
And that last Passover meal --- harvest times and lack of refrigeration ignored --- utilized grape juice, too.
And the Friday night Shabbats were tee-totaling, too, talmud requirements or no.
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.