🚀 go-pugleaf

"ZsaZsa" <reply@ng.org> wrote in message
news:Zhsr6.28309$p66.9326573@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> "Gerry Carter" <gerrycarter@home.com> wrote in message
> news:Wafr6.22878$p66.7967158@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> >
> > "ZsaZsa" <reply@ng.org> wrote in message
> > news:fwar6.21370$p66.7342285@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
> > >
> > > "John Smith" <fatjohnny72@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6Z5r6.217$q46.14964784@news1.tor.primus.ca...
> > > >
> > > > AlexF@cc1.bhc5.org wrote in message ...
> > >
> > > > >    If the customer had one too many, no.  But if the
> > > > >bartender saw that the customer was clearly drunk out
> > > > >of his mind, and yet served him another drink anyway,
> > > > >just because he wanted to make an extra buck, then
> > > > >yes, if I get hit by that drunk driver you can bet
> > > > >I'm suing both the drunk and the bar.
> > > >
> > > > How absurd.  Bartenders shouldn't be under any obligation to define
> and
> > > > enforce consumption limits on their customers.  They sell a fully
> legal
> > > > product to people who request it and can stop requesting it at any
> time.
> > > > The consequences of this exchange rest with the buyer.  End of
story.
> > >
> > > On the contrary, in Ontario people who serve booze, and those who sell
> it
> > in
> > > retail establishments , are required to deny service to people who are
> > > obviously drunk.  The license holder of an establishment can lose
> his/her
> > > liquor license for "permitting drunkeness", that is allowing drunks to
> > > remain in said establishment.  This is as much to protect other
patrons
> > > and the public as the drunk.
> >
> > By the time someone is obviously drunk, they are already to drunk to
drive
> > etc.  How does allowing them to get more drunk remove from them the
> personal
> > responsibility for their own inebriation?
>
> I'm afraid I don't understand the question.
>

The implication is this:

If I start drinking at home and drive to the bar, there is not much question
that if I have an accident on the way it is my fault.

If I get to the bar and the bartender refuses to serve me, I leave, and have
an accident on the way home, it is still my fault.

If, however, he serves me one drink, in the eyes of the law it becomes his
fault because I was obviously drunk.

So my question is, how does a bartender serving me one more drink wind up
having my responsibility transferred to him?  It is a ludicrous situation
brought about by political correctness run amok and is symptomatic of a
victim mentality.