Posted on 12/29/2011 3:58:19 PM PST by NJRighty
BLUFFTON, S.C. -- A woman is suing a Bluffton bar because a bartender didn't check her age before serving her on the night of the 2009 wreck that paralyzed her.
The Beaufort Gazette reports that Chelsea Hess, who was then 20 years old, is a paraplegic because of the accident.
Hess' lawsuit in 14th Circuit Court says she was served at Jock's Sports Grill, but the bartender failed to check her ID or to determine if she was already drunk.
(Excerpt) Read more at thesunnews.com ...
” thus the suit should be mute.”
Yeah. It’s “mute” and irrevalunt. Hugh and series, and all that.
So she is suing the bar for not checking her I.D. and playing Mommy to make sure she didn’t have too much. She is suing DOT for not maintaining the shoulder of the road. Why not sue the local police department for not pulling her over before she wrecked her car AND why she is at it... sue the car company. For what? Not sure yet but I am sure her lawyer will find something.
Let me guess. Cute little blonde who has never been told “No” in her life.
I don’t know. Lawyers are usually pretty good at weeding out the cases where there is little likelihood of being reimbursed for their time.
Attention everyone, I’m not saying I agree with all of this so don’t shoot the messenger:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop
Serving alcohol to minors is illegal in all 50 states. Many states impose liability on bars for serving minors who subsequently injure themselves or others; deterring minors from being served alcohol. Thus in states like Texas and New Jersey, minors can sue a drinking establishment for their own injuries sustained while intoxicated. In other states, dram shop liability only extends to serving the “habitually intoxicated.”
The majority of states allow for recovery when the defendant knew (or should have known) the customer was intoxicated. Some states have attempted to address this problem through more exacting tests. Missouri’s recently revised dram shop law requires proof that the party demonstrates “significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction.” In Texas, a patron must be so obviously intoxicated that he presents a clear danger to himself and others.
On the other hand, in Massachusetts, the state’s highest court has held that a bar could be sued where a patron exhibiting “drunk, loud and vulgar” behavior was determined to be “visibly intoxicated,” Cimino v. The Milford Keg, Inc., 385 Mass. 323 (1981). In Cimino, evidence showed that the intoxicated patron had been served six or more White Russians by the Milford Keg bar. The patron left the bar, arriving at another bar about fifteen minutes later “totally drunk,” holding a White Russian. The next bar that he went to refused to serve him. Shortly thereafter, the intoxicated patron lost control of his car, drove on a sidewalk, and killed a pedestrian.
Under Illinois’ dram shop law, plaintiffs can recover after demonstrating that:
alcohol was sold to the patron by the defendant;
damages were sustained by the plaintiff;
the sale of alcohol was the proximate cause of the intoxication; and
intoxication was at least one cause of the plaintiff’s damages.
Proximate cause includes the requirement that the dram shop must have been able to foresee that its actions could cause injuries to third parties, but this is true for any establishment that serves (sells) alcohol. One Illinois court allowed a lawsuit against a company that dropped off self-serve barrels of beer at a union picnic.[citation needed]
Some states (such as New Jersey) impose liability on social hosts as well as commercial establishments. This related area of the law is known as social host liability.
Different states’ dram shop acts also differ as to whether a person who becomes intoxicated and injures themselves has a cause of action against the establishment that served them. Some states, such as New Jersey, will allow such a cause of action but will instruct the jury to take the intoxicated person’s own negligence into account. Other states, such as New York, will not allow a person who injures themselves to bring a lawsuit against the bar that served them, but if that person dies will allow such a person’s children to sue the drinking establishment for loss of parental consortium.[1]
It’s crazy, but my bet is she wins.
I disagree. I believe it would weed out the stupid lawsuits and the suits filed would have more merit and a chance to suceed.
And Rich and Powerful Guy would still be inclined to settle, maybe more so since under loser pays the idea that they just settle (which is what most stupid lawsuits really want) for “nuisance” would be diminished.
And I doubt loser pays stops the crazy juries from awarding massive payouts. I think serious cases wouldn’t be effected much.
I do see your point. It might hamper the good cases at first.
I’ll take your word for it, but I hope I never have to go there.
Apparently the rock between her ears was the part that was the victim of paralysis.
Who's her attorney, John Edwards II?
I think they don’t weed that much since most big organizations just settle out of nuisance. They are usally sure they get a quick payout.
And it might stop judge/court shopping like in Mississippi. Didn’t their state legislature have to address this finally?
If she wasn’t a minor at the time, doesn;t that come into play? She was 20 (and should be charged with underage drinking).
Why doesn’t she sue the cops for not arresting her.
I was going to say the same thing.
I wouldn’t count her out.
If she doesn’t win she may get an out of court settlement.
Since the Bar association has largely abrogated its roll as a self regulating body, it needs to be replaced by local lay boards who remove idiots.
Lawyers have proven themselves incapable of self regulation.
How does she intend to prove the bartender DIDN’T check her ID? If she admits to being drunk at the time, how does she know he didn’t?
Dram shop laws have been in existence since before our constitution, we got ours from English laws.
no one wants to take responsibility for their own actions.
That's been the argument against them since they were written but they still are on the books. That's why she got a lawyer to take the case, she has a good chance of winning - not that I agree with it.
The bartender simply needs to say he did card her, and she must have shown a fake ID. (shrug)
People can’t keep bending over for scumbag lawyers and their scumbag clients.
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.