<p>Jym, you and your H did a great job. I think there’s probably a family out there that could have been in tears this morning, and now won’t be because you both got involved.</p>
<p>Most of the posters have raised all the issues that occurred to me, except one. I have to wonder if the manager, who served the man “watered down” drinks, charged watered down rates?</p>
<p>^^^^ What Hayden said. Shouldn’t have been served. Good for your H and you!</p>
<p>So often I agree with JYM on piont after piont, but this one I am not sure I understand:
“But, if something had happened to my husband in his attempt to aid this man, they would NOT have been happy, as I would have been their worst enemy.”
May I ask for further clarification? Does it mean if your hub got hurt while volunteering to help an apparently drunk guy, that somehow the restaurant that was his last stop would be at fault? Wouldn’t that indicate that their inaction caused your hub to get hurt? I think I must be misunderstanding your wording.
Thank you.
And while I’m at it, I need to correct my wording. In my post 19 I said it can be hard to determine a bar’s responsibility. It should have said it can be hard to determine this particular restaurant’s responsibility. My apologies to readers.</p>
<p>Yes, younghoss, I think you understood my point. My DH should not have had to go out in the street to rescue this man who was THEIR PATRON to whom they served alcohol KNOWING he was already intoxicated and then whom they allowed to walk, or should I say stagger, with clearly impaired faculties, into harms way, while their waitstaff stood there and did NOTHING. They were clearly derelict in their duties to their customer and to the public. They would be culpable, to a degree. IMO.</p>
<p>** BTW he was apparently only sitting/drinking at the bar. He did not eat a meal at the restaurant.</p>
<p>Then allow me to disagree with that point(if your hub had been hurt). I would not blame the restaurant that was his last stop, any more than I would blame any other pedestrians for not helping, or any other drivers that passed him by. I might blame(to some degree) had he been hurt by another driver. The blame as I see it would be somewhat on the party that chose to drink so much, and the party that volunteered to go into the street to try to help. I disagree that anyone that saw him walking had an obligation to help- and thereby would be at fault if an accident occurred to the helper. He did not “have to” go into the street. </p>
<p>Please know, I think you hub did a wonderful, caring thing. But I don’t see it as a duty, and if one chooses to volunteer to go in the street to help a drunk cross a street doesn’t that assume a risk? I could see blaming them some if the drunk had been hit by a car, but I am struggling with the idea that they are at fault for a strangers injuries if a stranger gets hurt while volunteering to help a drunk.</p>
<p>I am not an attorney, but my understanding of the Dram shop laws is that the facility who knowingly served the intoxicated patron is liable for injuries caused as a result of their serving that patron. IMO its totally irrelevant as to whether my DH was acting as a good samaritan or whether he was driving a car that swerved to avoid this drunk and had a wreck. Same cause-same outcome. The sale of the alcohol was the proximate cause of the (potential/hypothetical) injuries to a third party. Liability lies with the restaurant that served the alcohol.</p>
<p>Younghoss, with all due respect, you have a simplistic view of people’s responsibilities for their actions (or inaction.) I understand that’s it’s easier to have a “paint by numbers” approach to fault, liability, responsibility - whatever you want to call it - but the fact is, most tragedies have more than one parent. A business which sells alcoholic beverages has a heightened responsibility for their patrons - and for the consequences of letting drunk patrons leave the premises under circumstances which very predictably can cause the drunk or third parties to become injured.</p>
<p>That’s the way it is, and that’s the way it should be. If you’re making money off of selling booze you are responsible for the predictable consequences of people drinking it. And potential injury to the drunk, a motorist, or a good Samaritan who attempts to forestall an injury arising from the actions of the drunk are all very predictable consequences.</p>
<p>That’s not to say it’s an easy equation. Balancing the right of the drunk to his personal freedom - however poorly he chooses to exercise that freedom - against the rights of others affected by it, which includes the restaurant, drivers and good Samaritans - is not a simple, black and white exercise. But that’s still how it plays out.</p>
<p>Thanks, kluge, for explaining it better than I can. As I mentioned in the OP (and to the manager there), the restaurant holds a license (a liquor license, a license to serve food in a facility that must be inspected and meet health code, etc) and these licenses hold them to a higher standard to protect the public.</p>
<p>Your husband is an uber mensch. That’s the most important part of the story!</p>
<p>Thanks, Classicrockerdad. Our DS, who is about to graduate from college in New Orleans, texted: “Helping drunks across the street. You are totally ready for New Orleans”. LOL</p>
<p>One last thought, younghoss. That poor fellow was not capable of making a reasoned decision. He was extremeley drunk and not capable of engaging in appropriate judgement, so the restaurant did have an obligation to some degree to keep him from hurting himself or others. They could have called a cab or the police. They did neither. They let him walk into the road, without the capacity to keep himself safe. His judgement was impaired. They have a duty to help protect him and the public (and my DH or any third party).</p>
<p>*** and meant to add- I do appreciate your kind words. Thank you.</p>
<p>I’m with ClassicRockerDad. And I’m also glad you gave the manager something to think about. :)</p>
<p>I think your H did the right thing. I am from Ontario Canada and we do have laws now that make the bar tender and establishment owner legally responsible if they have given a person they believe to be intoxicated a drink. Even if having a private party at your house and you let someone drive or walk away while drunk you are legally responsible until they get home. There have been a few cases in court but I am not sure how they turned out but I have witnessed a bartender refusing to serve a customer and the police being called because the customer was causing a disturbance. About 12 years ago before this law took affect I saved a drunks live after a car accident (I got the police and fire departments commendation) but because I told the police that the first thing I notices when dragging him out of the car and giving first aid (CPR) was the smell of alcohol and that gave them the right to administer alcohol blood tests even though he was unconscious. He tested way above the limits and they charged him, consequently he charged me with defamation of character because I could not prove he had been drinking and that he didn’t just spill it on himself so to him I violated his privacy. He ultimately lost his job as he drove for a living and the case against me got thrown out of court. Had this happened since the new law the bartender and bar owner where he was drinking could have been charged as well. Don’t know how it would have turned out though. I often thought after this that here is a good reason why people do not get involved but in reality I would do it again if I had too. I think your H did what was right and quite possibly saved a person life and the mental turmoil for the driver that may have hit him. I applaud you and your husband.</p>
<p>Well, part of the appeal here is when people may politley express different viewpoints. That is what we seem to have here.
I strongly agree with Kluge’s view that bars have a heightened responsibility for their patrons, and a responsibility for predictable consequences of their patrons that drink booze. And I agree with Jym that the restaurant has some degree of responsibility to keep him from hurting himself or others. I could see, Kluge that if this drunk got in to drive a car that an accident is very predictable. But Kluge, is it really “very predictable” that a stranger good samaritan would get hurt while helping the man cross a street? That is the scenario I was addressing.</p>
<p>But so all are clear, the point I disagreed with Jym on wasn’t- what was the restaurant’s responsibility if this drunk got hit by a car, it wasn’t what if he got in his car and crashed into a busload of orphans. The one that might have gotten hurt, in Jym’s query, wasn’t the patron. My disagreement was that Jym feels it would be the restaurant’s fault if Jym’s husband had gotten hurt while trying to help the drunk. I would feel in that scenario, that a fellow got hurt doing something dangerous in order to perform an extraordinarily good deed. Perhaps it is too simplistic, but I just don’t feel comfortable with a guy running into the street to help a drunk stranger cross, and if he gets hurt doing so, to blame the restaurant that may have served the troubled man a couple of drinks.</p>
<p>Similarly, had a driver stopped to pick up the drunk, to drive him home safely, but had an accident and got hurt on the way home, would that be the restaurant’s fault too, since the guy was volunteering to do the good deed of transporting him home?</p>
<p>Here’s a wiki explanation of the dram shop laws. [Dram</a> shop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dram_shop]Dram”>Dram shop - Wikipedia) If damages are sustained by a third party and the restaurant could foresee that their negligence could cause injury to a third party (which is easily arguable), they are liable.</p>
<p>Regardless, what I said originally is that I would have been their worst enemy if my DH had been injured. Not only would I have contacted an attorney (if my Dh was seriously hurt) but I would have complained up the restaurant chain by first filing a formal complaint through their corporate website, and I would have been very vocal. This might have included posting a comment on my fb page, our subdivision facebook group and/or or on a few of the local community fb groups I am on. If I wanted to, I could spread the word loudly and quickly in the community. And did I mention that I am friends with the former in-house counsel and COO for CNN, previously for Turner Broadcasting? I could have made a lot of noise if I needed or wanted to. I am merely musing on some of the ways the word could spread about their poor handling of the situation. My being his worst nightmare didnt necessarily limit my thoughts to litigation. </p>
<p>I briefly thought about filing a complaint to their corporate offices through the company website. Probably won’t, but I did look at the website and saw the procedure to file a complaint about a manager.</p>
<p>I think filing such a complaint to corporate would be well justified. I realize how easily it could be denied, but just the same, such a complaint seems fair to make.</p>
<p>I do not see a need to file a complaint. I think we are done. We did what we felt was right under the circumstances. We can sleep at night knowing what we did yesterday was the right thing to do.</p>
<p>I was watching one of those “what would you do” tv shows tonight and thought for a moment that the scenario we experienced last night could be a topic of one of those shows!! And no, John Quinones did not pop out and interview us yesterday after the incident.</p>
<p>I hope you know, Jym when I refer to “an extraordinarily good deed” that I mean it as a compliment.</p>
<p>Yes I realize that, younghoss. Thank you.</p>
<p>Oh my! I dreamt last night that my neighbors picketed in front of this restaurant with picket signs! LOL.</p>