🚀 go-pugleaf

"Gerry Carter" <gerrycarter@home.com> wrote in message
news:OdBr6.31436$p66.10379737@news3.rdc1.on.home.com...
>
> "ZsaZsa" <reply@ng.org> wrote in message
> news:Zhsr6.28309$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.

Sorry, I found a flaw here.  I could likely still sue the bartender and win
for not taking my keys away.  My god, isn't this stupid?

>
> 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.
>
>