tailgate parties and logon problems

[Victoria]

Hmmm... the log on problems seem to be solved...I think everything was slow yesterday:(

I spoke with the attorney where I work and asked his opinion about the liquor liability concerns. He said, it is and should be a real concern. He also mentioned some valuable alternatives.

1. Schedule the parties at a local restaurant, let the fan club pay for snacks etc. attendees buy their own liquor.

2. If we schedule a party in a box at the Pepsi, ask the Pepsi to cater it, snacks etc again letting party attendees buy their own beer etc.

I think the liability issue is a real concern, and does even concern employers around the holiday season. Moving forward with a level head will ensure the existance of the club.
:)

[Vin]

...and you should see the picture of her in an Attack jersey with Paul Gait's arm around her just before the Championship Game this year.

[RockStar]

I have to concur with the opinions about liquor. Wherever possible, let someone else worry about licensing and sales of booze.

Recently in Ontario, some douchebag recently sued her employer successfully after wrecking her car while drunk.

She had two or three drinks at an office party, left with colleagues and went to a local bar, got drunk there, wrecked her car on the way home and still managed to get a $300K judgement against her employer.

I hope to God a higher court will overturn this stupidity for here, but I'm scared to think what might happenin the US, where the environment is somewhat more litigious, and the damage awards considerably higher

[shameshame]

samething happen to a major hotel I was working at.not only does the hotel pay..... its was all over the news... and made the hotel look reallly bad. Now they alway make you pay for your own drinks.

[KhawkCruisin]

Unfortunately, the liability will ultimately be with the person who is supplying the booze. I use to bartend, and this is the main reason why I would cut somebody off.... If they wanted me to call them a taxi, I would, if they gave me a problem about it, well then Joey at the door usually was more than happy and willing to escort them to the sidewalk. Should the patron become sh@# face drunk and decides to drive and I didn't cut them off, and something happened, myself and the bar that I was employed at would be ultimately responsible in a "court" of law.

The same goes with a private party as well. If you attend a party and the host is supplying booze, it is the hosts responsibility to cut people off. If something should happen to any of the guests, guess who gets sued. Your gracious host.

I hope this helps and doesn't frieghten you away from tailgating!!

[gmbjr]

the PWFC doesn't actually supply alcohol except on bus trips(where nobody is driving but the pro bus driver). At bbqs it's always bring your own food & beverage....everyone shares family style....

pot luck BBQ gotta love it!

[CrazyRavensFan]

You could always drink Coca Cola!

[Dickie1]

I have something to add to this discussion.

I think it is an ABSOLUTE JOKE that bars, hosts, or people tailgaiting can be held responsible for the actions of the people who they serve alcohol to. When are we, and our justice system, going to start holding people responsible for their own actions?? I'm sure most of you have been to a club or bar that was packed....the bartenders barely look at you!!! They take your order, take your money, give you your drink and jump to the next customer. How in the hell are they supposed to judge you??? It is a joke. People need to, and should, be held responsible for what they do. If I am at a party, or bar, and I drive drunk, I am the idiot who decided to do that, not the person who "let" me go.

[Hooligan]

See post above for my opinion!

I agree with you Dickie. And it doesn't stop there. How about taking responsibility for other things too? And I know we all learn this. Hell, my 5th graders have a better concept of responsibility than most people my age. Between now and 5th grade...what happened? Did we all forget?

Just venting...

[Vin]

You gotta remember that laws are often based on certain moral axioms and that the law strives (but often fails) for consistency. The moral axiom here is sort of like "enforced Good Samaritanism" where the general rule of thumb is "When you expect that someone may come to harm soon, unless you are protecting yourself, you must take action to prevent harm from coming to pass. This is especially so if that someone cannot care for himself or be expected to behave as a rational adult. If you are negligent in this, then you have violated the law."

Let's go with an example...

Suppose "Bob" is invited to a party hosted by Ralph. At some point, "Bob" becomes legally drunk and, in the eyes of the law, he can't then be expected to make rational decisions.

So, when it comes to serious decisions that might affect Bob's life (such as operating a motor vehicle), someone near to Bob at that moment who can make the rational decision needs to act as an impromptu "legal guardian" to protect irrational Bob from harming himself or others due to his drunkeness. Who should shoulder that responsibility? That's subject to debate, but the most likely choice would be the person who got Bob drunk to begin with... Here's why: If everyone who is a rational adult is to be held accountable for their own actions, then Ralph is responsible for his actions too which, in this example, is the act of facilitating Bob to become drunk. Once Bob is drunk (and thus not fully rational), he's not entirely liable for all of his actions; Ralph has some liability too.

I agree that it seems that Bob should be held fully accountable. After all, he's an adult and rationale and "decided to get drunk". But it's never that simple.... It might not have been Bob's intention to get drunk, but he might have had a drink that had excessive levels of alcohol and he didn't know it until it's too late. That's just an example. Another example is this: Think about the food that you buy. When you buy it should you be held responsible if you get sick? Maybe - if you ate meat that's been sitting out in 90 degree heat for two hours. But what if you bought a burger from McDonald's that went bad, but you didn't know it? Even though you are a rational person and could have made the choice not to eat it, there comes a point when the other party is responsible. Their actions resulted in your sickness.

I know that this argument isn't the most solid, but it's more of an outline. Someone might try a similar argument for gun control, but what fails their is the "rationality" aspect.

The laws' perspective is: If a person is fully rationale, then they are responsible for their actions. If they are not, someone must help to protect that person from himself and others. Not attempting to do so is a moral crime.

Anyway, this could be talked about for hours.... In a nutshell, I can see the laws' perspective on something like this...

[WingedLion]

I sort agree with PhairisGod and Dickie1. Individuals who host parties should not be legally liable for someone getting drunk at a party, unless there is extreme neglience. Bars, on the other hand, are in the business of serving alcohol, so it is entire appropriate to hold them to a higher standard.

[hawksfan]

A bar owner in my hometown just told me that a NYS law was passed that would make liable everyone who served a drink to someone who drove drunk. Which means, Joe Schmoe can have 2 drinks in bar A, go to bar B and have 10 drinks and hit someone with his car on the way home and both bar A and B will be liable. How does that make any sense?

[Hooligan]

Originally posted by Vin
Suppose "Bob" is invited to a party hosted by Ralph. At some point, "Bob" becomes legally drunk and, in the eyes of the law, he can't then be expected to make rational decisions.

So then why in the eyes of the law is a person with schizophrenia held accountable for what they do, if they rob a bank while having a schizophrenic episode? The person with schizophrenia is not able to control their actions at all because of a legitimate disease. But the drunk gets off scott free, if he or she runs over a crowd of people in their SUV, because the bar-tender didn't watch them like their own mother all night?

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Truth be told, if you can't be responsible for yourself, then you need to move back in with Mommy and Daddy and hold their hands for a while longer! Maybe you can go back on the diaper and have them change it for you too!

[Vin]

Originally posted by PhairIsGod
So then why in the eyes of the law is a person with schizophrenia held accountable for what they do, if they rob a bank while having a schizophrenic episode? The person with schizophrenia is not able to control their actions at all because of a legitimate disease. But the drunk gets off scott free, if he or she runs over a crowd of people in their SUV, because the bar-tender didn't watch them like their own mother all night?

Sorry, but this makes absolutely no sense. Truth be told, if you can't be responsible for yourself, then you need to move back in with Mommy and Daddy and hold their hands for a while longer! Maybe you can go back on the diaper and have them change it for you too!

I actually agree with you guys - I wasn't really trying to disagree, but trying to explain a legal perspective. At the same time, there are situations in life when, no matter what you do, it is the actions of others that affect what you do or affect what is done to you. In such a situation, how can you be held responsible for what they have done? Where do you draw the line (that's a rhetorical question)? Your example of the bartender is a good one. But what about medical malpractice? For instance, if I get elective surgery and it goes heinously wrong, who's liable? (A specific case in point might be laser eye surgery.) The bartender giving me a drink is like the surgeon operating on me in that they are both performing a service which affects me, my abilities, and my quality of life. Now, suppose I operate a motor vehicle after using those services. We all know about driving drunk. But, with the eye surgery, I may have these "halos" which can affect my night driving and I might hit somebody whom I would have seen if I didn't have the surgery. Yet, by my own free will, I chose to go to the bar - or get surgery - so I do have some responsiblity for whatever happens later, but how much is also the responsiblity of the person who provided the service? There is not always clear-cut simple answers to such a question which is why we have an industry regarding liability and insurance.

Anyway, again, I'm not really disagreeing with you, but it's not black and white either.

[Victoria]

Whoa! Down Boys! While I agree with what's been posted here all around. Let's stay focused. The mission statement of the Attack Pack Fan club doesn't state that it is a lobbying organization, therefore, we are not in a position to take on changing the law(not that that is not a good cause!) but to how best protect the members of the club, given the current legal standing and probablity of someone using that legal standing against the club, should we contribute to their alcohol consumption.

Whew! So, that said, I get the impression, that while you have all posted very valuable opinions and I agree with personal responsibility for ones actions. It may still be best, for the fan club as an entity to avoid the possible legal ramifications of serving alcohol.

This is a new club and we want to see it off to the best start that will ensure fun and longevity.

[Hooligan]

Your solution Victoria...four letters

B Y O B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

[Vin]

Originally posted by PhairIsGod
Your solution Victoria...four letters

B Y O B!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:D

Exactly... Which is what I suggested at the last meeting and still do.

[Dickie1]

Vin, I understand your point on the law, and I understand that is the way things are from a legal standpoint. MY point is that it is not right that things are that way. Just speaking on the alcohol issue, if "Bob" shows up at a party and drinks more then he can handle, then to me, THAT is Bobs problem. If Bob can't handle his alcohol, then Bob needs to hire a babysitter for himself when he goes out.

I tell you this: If I have a party and someone tries to sue me or I face jail time in a court of law, I will curse that court and the judge if I have to serve time or pay money....CURSE THEM....LOUDLY!!!

Which would probably lead to worst things, but oh well. Sometimes, you have to stand up and point out the stupid, idiotic things in the world.

My point is, it is black and white. People HAVE to be held responsible for THEIR actions. If I go out drinking, it is MY responsibility to control myself, not my friends or the bartenders.

[Vin]

Originally posted by Dickie1
Vin, I understand your point on the law, and I understand that is the way things are from a legal standpoint. MY point is that it is not right that things are that way. Just speaking on the alcohol issue, if "Bob" shows up at a party and drinks more then he can handle, then to me, THAT is Bobs problem. If Bob can't handle his alcohol, then Bob needs to hire a babysitter for himself when he goes out.
...

My point is, it is black and white. People HAVE to be held responsible for THEIR actions. If I go out drinking, it is MY responsibility to control myself, not my friends or the bartenders.

That may seem to be Bob's problem, but it's not. When Bob drives drunk and kills somebody, it all of a sudden became that person's family's problems too. Yes, to a large extent, you could say it is Bob's problem and he should be responsible. Still, many feel their would be, for lack of a better term, "widened liability". Here is an example train of Q/A to illustrate this:

Q1 (posed by relative of person killed by Bob's DWI accident): Why is my (say, daughter) dead?

A1. She was killed by a drunk driver?

Q2. Why was he drunk?

A2. He was at a party thrown by the Acme Club. He consumed too much alcohol to operate an motor vehicle, but did operate it nonetheless.

Q3. Why did he operate the motor vehicle?

A3. He wanted to.

[At this point, you'd say it was case closed and that Bob is 100% responsible.]

Q4. But he was drunk. He shouldn't have operated the motor vehicle. Someone should have stopped him.

A4. If Bob had not been so drunk, he might have been able to stop himself....

Q5. But he was! He didn't know his *** from his elbow being so drunk!

A5. Well.... at least he's in the pokey for vehicular homicide ....

Q6. That doesn't bring my daughter back! He was so f*cking drunk, he couldn't think straight. Furthermore, it should have been obvious to anyone who wasn't also drunk that Bob couldn't drive! Why didn't anyone stop him?

A6. Because we believe in Dickie-ism which, in this case, states that only the driver is liable.

Q7. How could anybody let Bob drive knowing the state he was in?!

A7. Because those at the party also felt that only the driver is liable. It was Bob's responsibility not to get in the motor vehicle and to control his drinking. He should deal with any consequences have no obligation to him.

Q8. That's morally bankrupt! That's like turning a blind eye towards a crime or disaster victims in need of help. How could we live in such a society?! Why didn't anybody do anything??!!


In a sense, perhaps I can put society's perspective briefly like this:

Our society is such that, when "conditions" are such that "there is a strong possibility that something bad is going to happen unless somebody does something about it", then we are compelled to do something about it. That may be something minor like alert the authorities, but complete indifference is often not acceptable. Furthermore, if someone is a potential contributor to those "conditions", then they must also be held responsible for helping to ensure that those "conditions" do not arise. Furthermore, implicit in the law is that, a conscious decision not to act here is viewed as condoning the behavior which, is often considered by the law, as just as bad as committing the act itself.

While I'm not a lawyer, I beleive that failing to take action and/or preventative measures is the source of many crimes involving "negligence", "grave indifference", and "accomplice".

In the example above, Bob being drunk is only 1/2 of the "condition". Bob being drunk is not really a problem. Bob being drunk and operating a car (the other 1/2 of the "condition") is. With Bob being in his "condition" (drunk and driving), anybody around him who can see that should realize that, unless someone prevents Bob from driving, then there is a strong possibility that he'll get into an accident and hurt or kill himself or someone else. So, failing to do that, the laws perspective is that we are being negligent to the safety of our fellow citizens (other than Bob). I suppose that, given Bob's state, our cavilier attitude would could be seen as being gravely indifferent. Society doesn't like that.

I'll try and give some other examples that might help clarify "society's big picture on stuff like this".

EX1. Joe and Dave are going to be involved in a bank robbery. Joe has the gun and will go in the bank and get the cash; Dave will wait in the getaway car. Before the heist, Joe says to Dave not to worry, he won't use the gun. Furthermore, Joe, a Dickie-ist, tells Dave that, even if Joe did use the gun, Dickie's not at fault becuae Joe would be the guy who pulled the trigger. Well, the heist doesn't go smoothly and Joe shoots at and kills the security guard. They get caught a few days later. Not surprisingly, Joe gets to "ride the lightning" visiting Sparky in Dannemora. But, to Dave's suprise, Dave got convicted of, among other things, "accessory to murder". From what Joe said, Dave wasn't expecting that. In essence, Society, via the law, said "Dave, you knew Joe had a gun and was going to commit armed robbery. You knew he might use it with the possibility he might kill someone. Why didn't you do something to stop him?" "I...I...I... He pulled the trigger it was Joe's responsibility!" "But it was your responsibility to do the right thing and stop him...." "uh....." "Bad Dave! Bad! Bad! You get to become Rufus' b*tch in Attica for life."

EX2. Richard suffers from a debilitating ailment which requires a consistent regiment of drugs to keep him alive. Other than that, Richard is normally healthy enough to go and get his medication by himself. Unfortunately for Richard, he got into a car accident - hit by Bob, I suspect - so he's laid up at home and can't purchase his medication himself - he needs to have someone get it for him.
Furthermore, there's no phone in the room for him to be able to contact anyone. Well, fortunately, Richard thinks, he is married to the lovely Babbette; she will go and get his meds for him. Little does Richard know, but Babbette is dicking around with Pierre and she'd like to get a divorce. She can't afford the time and money nor does she want to go through the effort... Babbette, conniving b*tch that she is, just thought that she's won the divorce lottery with Richard's "unfortunate" circumstances. She's a devout Dickie-ist, so, she thinks, all she has to do is.... nothing! It's Richard's responsibility that he got into this mess in the first place being sick and being stupid enough to drive while Bob was on the road - he should have known better. Dispensing with marital vows, she goes on holiday with Pierre in Cannes. While she's out bopping Pierre on the French Riviera, Richard is wasting away and there's nothing he can do about it. Boom, he's dead. Babbette, having returned with a nice tan, finds not to her surprise that Richard's kicked the bucket. Babbette has gotten her de facto divorce free of cost. Of course, eventually Richard's death is a matter of record and an autopsy is performed and he died of his ailment. But why? The cops want to know that. Surely his wife would have helped him, they think. For the cops, it doesn't take an epsiode of Law and Order to realize that Babbette just didn't bother to take responsibility for her husband. Babbette, enjoying a day of shopping at S*A*K*S Fifth Avenue, much to her surprise is greated by the Police and charged with something like "negligent homicide with grave indifference" (I'm not a lawyer, so I wouldn't know the actual crimes she'd be indicted for). A year later, Babbette wishes she had a file, not for her nails, but for her prison bars. "Why", she still wonders, "am I being punished for this? It was Richard's problem and responsibility to take care of himself, not mine. At least that's what Dickie taught me...."

In a nutshell. yes, we are responsible for our actions. At the same time, society imparts to us, via the law, that we should try and care for each other too and not let our fellow citizens come to harm if there is any reasonable action that we can take.

In the Bob/bar case, society has proscribed that those who provide the alcohol are to be the ones with the onus described above.

I guess you're right - it is black and white - society's laws make us have a sense of responsibility toward one another. Ignoring that responsibility is wrong.

[Dickie1]

Vin, first of all, you have way too much time on your hands. Next time, type it up and send it to a publisher. At least you'll get paid.

Secondly, we're gonna have to agree to disagree. You took what I am saying way too far. It is people like you, and your thinking, that has made this country what it is....a bunch of people depending on other people for everything. A bunch of people sueing other people for everything. The law should be there to make sure I do not make someones elses life miserable, that I do not hurt someone else, that I do not steal from someone else. It shouldn't be there to tell me how to live a moral life....I got the bible and other religious books for that if I so decide I need help in that department.

The law is there to protect us from people who are trying to hurt/kill/rape/rob us, not to make me responsible for another adult.

Your example of the bank robbery did not reflect what I think. If someone makes the decision to drive a "getaway" car, they too should be held responsible for the actions that take place, because they were aware that a crime was about to take place and they TOOK PART in that crime. Me serving alcohol to someone is not a crime unless they are underage. Me letting them get into a car may be wrong, but it shouldn't be against the law.

[Vin]

Originally posted by Dickie1


You took what I am saying way too far.



You're right, I did and I'm quite sorry for that. It seemed like I was coming down on you hard and I wasn't trying to be. My bad.

Originally posted by Dickie1


It is people like you, and your thinking, that has made this country what it is....a bunch of people depending on other people for everything.



It's people like that that join the fire department and get killed in the WTC for us.

We don't necessarily depend on each other for everything, but we do depend on each other to behave in a certain fashion. If it weren't the case, society would collapse. You might want learn about John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau...

Originally posted by Dickie1


The law should be there to make sure I do not make someones elses life miserable, that I do not hurt someone else, that I do not steal from someone else.



Yes... exactly... Your point of view is that that should only hold when it comes to actions you take. The larger view point is to include the fact that omission is action is another type of action.

Originally posted by Dickie1


It shouldn't be there to tell me how to live a moral life....I got the bible and other religious books for that if I so decide I need help in that department.



I'll agree to that. :) Laws are based on more-or-less universally held rules of ethics, morals, and mores. Religions often have similar codifications of these and couple them with a deity or dieties as the inspiration for these.

Originally posted by Dickie1


The law is there to protect us from people who are trying to hurt/kill/rape/rob us, not to make me responsible for another adult.



Yeah, you're right... but who is it that does the protecting? Who's responsible for that? We all are to a significant extent.

Originally posted by Dickie1


Your example of the bank robbery did not reflect what I think. If someone makes the decision to drive a "getaway" car, they too should be held responsible for the actions that take place, because they were aware that a crime was about to take place and they TOOK PART in that crime. Me serving alcohol to someone is not a crime unless they are underage.


Me letting them get into a car may be wrong, but it shouldn't be against the law.



I think you've hit the point... You see that the getaway car guy was screwed because he was a party to the crime.

Bob driving the car under the influence is also a crime. How he got that way is what's important and depending upon the circumstances, it might be said that the bartender is also a party in that same crime. I gotta tell you - I actually think you are right and the bartender shouldn't be held culpable - not for serving the alcohol at least, but, at the same time, perhaps he should be because to some extent because he let Bob drive while Bob was obviously drunk.

It's often a fine line as to who is liable and culpable. It seems that, the closer you are to the crime, the more culpable you become. We can't hold Molson culpable for Bob's selection of beer, but we might be able to hold the bartender culpable for not preventing Bob from driving while obviously drunk. Anyway, that's why there are so many cases about this stuff.

One final comment slightly off topic... This is all basically Asimov's First Law of Robotics which, paraphrased, is "Do not harm a human nor, through omission of action, allow a human to be harmed."

Dude, I'm sorry for getting on a soapbox before and coming across like I was pissed at you.

[Dickie1]

I ain't gonna lie, Vin....you're talking way over my head with some of this. Bring it down a notch so the normal folk can understand.

I guess I worry about when the bartender or party thrower can not tell the person is obviously drunk. I know a guy....can't tell the difference if he is sober or has had 20 beers, I swear. I let him leave my house drunk, he kills someone, and I go to jail??? For what, not giving everyone a breathalyzer?? Bull**** <---and look, I don't have to use the "*" to hide my misuse of the English language.

Guess I'll get reported now by Good Citizen Vin. :p

[Vin]

.... 100%. That's why it's a fine line and there are so many cases with this. In your example, you couldn't tell the difference, so, yeah, you shouldn't be held responsible. Someone who could tell the difference might be.

Yeah, I do endeavour to be a good citizen. I got my value system in the late 60s and early 70s when being a good human being meant something. Part of that was to care for other people.

Party on! :)

[Dickie1]

God bless ya, Vin...God bless ya.