Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by dmr727, Dec 18, 2008.
arent bars suppose to cut someone off if they have had too many?
This issue is directly addressed in the article... did you read it?
I actually kind of would like to see something like this go to trial -- the whole issue of legal precedent in international airspace could use more clarification.
Ridiculous. People will blame everybody else but themselves when something bad happens.
its not ridiculous.
Care to expand on why it is not ridiculous? Or is this just a playground arguement, yes it is, no it isn't yes yes yes, no no no.
I think it is quite silly that if you get drunk then attack someone and other people can be held liable and have to cover the results of that attack.
On a different note:
The event happened in the states shortly after landing.
The alcohol was consumed in flight over international water.
Departure was from a country with different laws than the US.
It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
I know you didn't ask me, but...
This may be unique to American law -- I don't know if there are similar laws in the UK, and I would be kind of shocked if there were in Japan. But, as the article states, there are laws that clearly apply to this issue in the United States, were the service of beverages to have occurred at a bar on the ground inside the US. What's unique about this case is that it happened in the air over international water.
Now the US law may be right, wrong, or indifferent, but per the US law, this kind of case wouldn't immediately be lacking in merit were the issue of air travel not involved.
because bars can get in legal trouble if they continue to serve those who are already intoxicated
as long as the plane is in the air, it is in the originating country's jursidiction
That still doesn't give them the right to blame the airlines for him beating his wife. The airline should only be liable for serving one to many (if this is the case).
For the same kind of argument, you couldn't blame the bar that served a drunk driver that kills somebody on the road.
yes you can
though the laws may be different state to state
I guess my example was bad. I wasn't referring to the bartender over-serving. I was merely saying that because somebody gets drunk, that's no excuse to blame the person who served them the alcohol for the actions the [drunk] might cause.
If you read themoonisdown09's statement again his issue, which you disagreed with, was that people were trying to blame everybody else but themselves. Which is what they are quite clearly doing.
I can not fathom how anyone could place blame on the airline for the physical assault. The blame is squarely at the feet of the attacker.
edit: This thread moved fast.
If this is the case why are the papers being published in a US court. Shouldn't they be put forward under the Japanese court system. And the article talks about many US laws that may cover the case.
a physical assault as the result of being drunk as a result of the airline overserving
the airline is partly to blame if there are indeed laws concerning overserving (which is not uncommon)
as ive said, when the plane is in the air, its under jurisdiction of originating country. once it lands, its then in the destination country's jurisdiction.
Did the bartender make this guy drink them? If not, I don't see how it's the airline's fault.
I also want to know if this guy has had any kind of domestic violence in the past. If so, I don't think they should have a case at all.
So how do you know when you're overserving? Sometimes it's obvious, sure, but most of the time it's not. If I have two glasses of wine, which would likely put me over the legal limit to drive, but not enough to make me visibly intoxicated - the airline would still be at fault if I decided to beat my wife?
I agree. Everyone's toleration is different. Someone weighing 300 lbs can handle more than someone weighing 100 lbs.
How can you say the alcohol cause the person to carry out the physical assult. I've been drunk many times before and not once attacked a person. Claiming that the alchol resulted in the physical assult is a far stretch.
The person knowingly got drunk, therefore they should full well know the consequences of their actions. If violence is one of them, and people serving them could not be expected to predict or expect this then so be it. I agree with themoonisdown09, it just seems like they are trying to get something for nothing (well a pretty violent attack actually) and place the blame elsewhere.
I'm glad someone else agrees with me. I hate when people try and put someone else at blame for things they did.
if there are overserving laws, then it is illegal for the bartender to even serve the drinks if the person is drunk
i dont know. im not a bartender
im just pointing out the fact that there are laws that make it illegal to serve one who is drunk.
to say that this lawsuit id ridiculous is premature as we dont know all the facts. however, you cant simply dismiss it as unfounded in its claims
You can't always tell that someone is drunk. Yes, some people are very obvious, but others can handle it well.
Moved its fast arse all the way to PRSI.
Seriously... without disagreeing that a violent person should be the primary focus of looking why their own violent behavior occurred...
We have all kinds of interventions in the civilized world, in which various agencies, businesses, and individuals are held accountable (in part) for others' actions. Not because they are really guilty in any meaningful, philosophical sense, but because it is expedient.
If requiring bars to limit the alcohol they serve to patrons reduces the rate of violent crime, I don't really care about the philosophy of placing this onus on bar owners, because I don't see it as any serious violation of a basic human liberty about which I care. I'm all in favor of the outcome. By my vote, I would quite like it if one had to surrender their car keys on admission to a bar and pass a breathalyzer to get them back.... Not because it's deeply right in any compelling sense, but because I do not want to be killed by drunk drivers.
I was wondering how long it would take to get moved to PRSI.
We do hold domestic bars accountable for this sort of thing (it's part of their liquor license renewal in most states) so I don't see why an airline can't be held accountable in the same way.
The only issue like mkrishnan said, revolves around jurisdiction. Who controls the jurisdiction of a plane when it is not in domestic air?