I thought that this was an interesting article.
Last night I did what will probably be my final server training session ever (this is number 12 or 13). Generally, people hate having to be server trained because it can be boring and most of the information is a laundry list of everything that can go wrong when people drink. I've always found the legality stuff very interesting because of its ambiguity and how difficult it can be to determine accountability in the case of too much alcohol.
For those unwilling to read, the G&M link I posted talks about an Ontario court case in which a golf club was charged with serving young adults (over 18) too much alcohol, then allowing them to drive. After leaving the restaurant, the driver crashed the car, killing himself and two of the three passengers. Now, getting in to a car while you're drunk is stupid. End of story. However, I do think that there should be some effort on the part of establishments serving alcohol to find alternatives for the drunken patrons to get home. Bear in mind that this happened in rural Ontario (Muskoka), not in downtown Toronto where public transport and taxis abound.
The designated driver was incredibly irresponsible in drinking before driving, but I think that the golf club was also irresponsible in failing to look out for the welfare of their patrons. Apparently, the Ontario provincial court agrees with me.
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I don't know if this is really comparable, but just a few weeks ago I found a story in the news (which I now can't find of course), about a father charged with the death (criminal negligence? manslaughter? I don't remember again) of his daughter after his ex-wife beat her to death. The court apparently ruled that, given the woman's history of mental health, the father was in one way or another culpable for his daughter's murder by leaving the kid alone with the crazy mother. Obviously, that case is a bit more extreme, but perhaps legally falls under the same category. Both the father and the bar knew the risks of their actions (or inaction, as it may be), but refrained from intervening anyway. Obviously a father is responsible for the well-being of his daughter, whereas a bartender is not responsible for the well-being of his customers, so that may be the significant distinction.
ReplyDeleteWhat the bartender or the bar itself failed to do was probably immoral, but I don't know about illegal.