Who is responsible?

[Mark]

A person spends time at a bar and they are drinking and getting visibly impared due to their alcohol comsumption and they then leave the bar and on the way home gets into an accident.

Should the bar have done something to prevent the drinker from driving? Should the bar bear some responsibility to causing the accident? Can the bar be sued?

We know from past cases that the bar can be held responsible for not stopping the patron from getting behind the wheel but how do you feel about that?

[terri]

I think the bar has the responsibility to cut people off when they are seriously impaired. I don't know about assigning blame to the bar for another adult making the decision to drive drunk.

[RobForaker]

Delaware laws require bartenders to have ABC card. You go through a training program to become a licensed bartender every 4 years....The bartender is responsible for their patrons whom have the right to sue bartenders for accidents due to over consumption of alcohol. The bar is not responsible

[longnecker]

I think a person who drives to a bar and starts drinking has to assume responsibility.

[max1]

I work at the inn on some weekends, I have the ability to flag you, ask a bartender to flag you or just ask you to slow down or to sober up some before you leave....I have done all of them, but sometimes you dont see it and a fight starts then everyone leaves drunks and not so drunk.

[cracker]

Holding the bar or bartender responsible is asinine. All responsibility should be on the shoulders of the person who chose to drink and get behind the wheel. Period.

[longnecker]

Holding the bar or bartender responsible is asinine. All responsibility should be on the shoulders of the person who chose to drink and get behind the wheel. Period.

Exactly. Of course I have been around for a while. I know that if I am out dining with family 3 Margaritas over dinner is ok for me. After the third I may not feel drunk but the chances of me stopping really slow down. For me NEVER drink alone.

[Mark]

So here is why I asked, and I can't get credit for this because I got this from The Smerconish Show, but there is a case right now in New Jersey where it is being determined if a person (Person A) is texting to another person (B) and that other person (B) knows that the person(A) is driving, does person (B) have any culpability in the accident that is the result of texting while driving?

http://tomchaveslaw.com/new-jersey-c...meone-driving/

Landmark case: sued for texting drivers?

The texting while driving case that could be a game-changer for this country. A New Jersey judge is expected to decide this week whether a woman who sent text messages to her boyfriend, whom she knew was driving at the time can be sued for contributing to the crash he caused while texting her back. The two motorcyclists he hit each lost a leg.

[max1]

My first reaction to this is that the guy driving has the ability and the responsibility to turn off the phone. None of this would be debated if he had just done that.

[longnecker]

So here is why I asked, and I can't get credit for this because I got this from The Smerconish Show, but there is a case right now in New Jersey where it is being determined if a person (Person A) is texting to another person (B) and that other person (B) knows that the person(A) is driving, does person (B) have any culpability in the accident that is the result of texting while driving?

http://tomchaveslaw.com/new-jersey-c...meone-driving/

Landmark case: sued for texting drivers?

The texting while driving case that could be a game-changer for this country. A New Jersey judge is expected to decide this week whether a woman who sent text messages to her boyfriend, whom she knew was driving at the time can be sued for contributing to the crash he caused while texting her back. The two motorcyclists he hit each lost a leg.

I think the blame there is solely on the driver. He did not have to read the text. Could have pulled over or waited for a traffic light.

[Chase]

i would absolutely throw that case right out the courtroom. utter ridiculousness.

[cracker]

My first reaction to this is that the guy driving has the ability and the responsibility to turn off the phone. None of this would be debated if he had just done that.

I think the blame there is solely on the driver. He did not have to read the text. Could have pulled over or waited for a traffic light.

You both beat me to it. I think the whole problem started and ended w/ the guy that was driving. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

[Tracy]

I saw this on the news this morning and I think it's COMPLETELY ridiculous...In fact (and I know I'm going to get hell for this), it makes more sense to say that the victims share more responsibility than the person sending the text. You wanna open up a big can of stupid worms? Let's open up a big can of stupid worms....They were on a vehicle that inherently is more dangerous than your average four door sedan. Therefore, if you get hurt, you have to share in some of that responsibility. It's very likely if the guy that was texting hit a Honda Civic as opposed to a motorcyle, these people would still have their legs.

[Kid Lester]

You guys really need to look at this a little deeper.

Now, the court might look at this and toss it right out. But it is NOT open and shut. There's a real argument to be made here.

The attorney believes they can prove the following:

The woman who was texting the driver that caused the accident KNEW FOR A FACT that the person she was texting was driving. They were having an entire text conversation. Every time she responded via text and he replied back, she knew he was reading her texts while he was driving. Hence, every time she sent him a text, she knew he was going to read it and be in violation of the law.

If it can be proven beyond a doubt that she knew very well that she was engaged in a text CONVERSATION with somebody she knew was driving while texting with her, do you still feel as though she has 0% responsibility for a traffic accident that arose from the driver's inattentiveness? 0% ?

[cracker]

If it can be proven beyond a doubt that she knew very well that she was engaged in a text CONVERSATION with somebody she knew was driving while texting with her, do you still feel as though she has 0% responsibility for a traffic accident that arose from the driver's inattentiveness? 0% ?

Maybe she's responsible in an ethical or moral sense but in no way shape or form should she be legally responsible in a civil suit. She wasn't in the car, she wasn't driving. The driver had every chance to make the right decisions and chose not to. To me its as simple as that.

[longnecker]

If it can be proven beyond a doubt that she knew very well that she was engaged in a text CONVERSATION with somebody she knew was driving while texting with her, do you still feel as though she has 0% responsibility for a traffic accident that arose from the driver's inattentiveness? 0% ?

Kid I do understand your point BUT the fact remains the driver did not have to respond to her.

[Kid Lester]

[/COLOR] Kid I do understand your point BUT the fact remains the driver did not have to respond to her.

No doubt. And there's no doubt the driver bears the vast responsibility for this. Maybe all of it. I'm just saying, if you continue to send text messages to someone that you know very well is reading them and typing back while driving..I mean, you KNOW this. You know it as it's happening and you continue to encourage it by sending more and more texts, are you not at least contributing to the crime of texting while driving? Are you not even an accomplice to that charge?

It's one thing to expect somebody to know exactly when and where a text they send will be read and what response it will elicit. That's not the issue here. The issue here is, what if it can proven that the person continued to engage in a text CONVERSATION with someone they definitely, beyond all doubt, knew was driving at the time?

[cracker]

No doubt. And there's no doubt the driver bears the vast responsibility for this. Maybe all of it. I'm just saying, if you continue to send text messages to someone that you know very well is reading them and typing back while driving..I mean, you KNOW this. You know it as it's happening and you continue to encourage it by sending more and more texts, are you not at least contributing to the crime of texting while driving? Are you not even an accomplice to that charge?

It's one thing to expect somebody to know exactly when and where a text they send will be read and what response it will elicit. That's not the issue here. The issue here is, what if it can proven that the person continued to engage in a text CONVERSATION with someone they definitely, beyond all doubt, knew was driving at the time?

I hear what you're saying but I think the connection you're trying to make is tenuous at best. The line has GOT to be drawn somewhere. Where would it stop? No more guns b/c everyone knows that criminals like them? After all, out of all the firearms manufactured at least a couple of them are going to be used in a crime. No more booze? Everyone knows that at least some people are going to get drunk and drive. That's a fact. Should the companies that sell booze be responsible?

Following the plaintiffs' argument to its logical conclusion just scares me a little bit.

[Chase]

i think it's verizons fault.

[cracker]

I should be leaving for work right now but talkdelaware.com is too much fun. If I get fired for not showing up I'm going to sue chase first and then Al Gore for inventing the internet in the first place.