Many defendants, including five of her friends as well as the inevitable bar, are to blame for not doing more to keep Amanda Jax from downing so much alcohol that night, according to the lawsuit by her family. (“Alcohol death: five times limit”, Mankato (Minn.) Free Press, Nov. 9; Dan Nienaber, “Lawyer: Civil suit coming in drinking death”, Mankato Free Press, Dec. 28; “The defendants and their alleged actions that night”, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Feb. 28; Scarlet Raven, Feb. 29).
Posts Tagged ‘alcohol’
Nanny state, Virginia 1934 edition
An Alexandria tapas bar was cited for serving sangria—which violates a 1934 Virginia law against mixing wine with spirits, with penalties of up to a year in jail. Virginia Spanish restaurants, so warned, now only serve a bowdlerized version of the drink, to the dismay of customers who can get the real thing a few miles away in DC or Maryland. The legislature is contemplating a change, though a pending bill would fail to exempt the similarly illegal kir royals or boilermakers. (Anita Kumar, “Virginia’s Sangria Ban At Issue in 2 Hearings”, Washington Post, Jan. 24). (According to Instruction 33 on this bulletin, Virginia also appears to ban the pitcher of margaritas the local Mexican restaurant serves.) Left unspoken: when is someone going to bring a consumer class action against the Spanish restaurants serving faux sangrias without warning customers?
(ObJingoism: At least Virginia still has better Thai, Indian, and Vietnamese food than DC or Maryland.)
For more on the more modern food police, see Overlawyered’s Eat, Drink, and Be Merry section or my article, A Taxonomy of Obesity Litigation.
Extra-judicial punishment?
Jacob Sullum (of the often excellent Reason Magazine) makes note of a prosecutor in Arizona who places DUI offenders’ names, mug shots and BAC levels online. Sullum concludes that the prosecutor is “imposing extrajudicial punishment, based on his unilateral conclusion that the penalties prescribed by law for DUI offenses provide an inadequate deterrent.”
Publicizing records that are, by nature, public is normally fine by me. But the prosecutor seems to have created, in a sense, a DUI offender registry. Appearance on sex offender registries is a matter determined by law, not the whim of prosecutors. Also, Mothers Against Drunk Driving won’t endorse the idea:
“Some parts of the Web site are good because they are informational and trying to provide the victim’s perspective,” said Misty Moyse, the spokeswoman for the group. However, she said, “M.A.D.D. would not want to be involved in calling out offenders. We are interested in research- and science-based activities proven to stop drunk driving.”
(crossposted at catallaxy.net)
Social host alcohol liability
A discussion by Judge Posner at the Becker-Posner blog (via Childs) provokes this on-point comment from reader “Phil”:
Perhaps one of the reasons social-host liability hasn’t caught on yet is that the “duty” one is expected to perform is onerous.
Should one of my guests insist on driving home drunk, I have two choices: either take his keys by force, or call the police and have him caught.
In the first case, I could get badly hurt — and, if my friend is only slightly over the legal limit, the combined physical harms to me and my friend are probably much higher than to the sum of the expected harms to all drivers on the road.
In the second case, my friend will lose his license, and perhaps his freedom. The penalty for getting caught driving drunk is much higher than the harms resulting from the individual infraction, as a deterrent, required because of the fact that so few drunk drivers are caught. So this is not something I would do to a friend. A stranger, perhaps, but not a friend.
The fact is that social hosts faced with an intoxicated friend who insists on driving have no reasonable recourse.
Tipsy totter ended wrestling, began political career
No longer able to practice his art as one of the “Killer Bees” tag team duo in bee-striped trunks, and reduced instead to serving as an elected public official in Florida:
Six years after a restaurant accident that he blamed for ending his professional wrestling career, Brian Blair has settled his negligence lawsuit against Carrabba’s Italian Grill. …
Carrabba’s attorney, Donald G. Greiwe, had filed papers indicating Blair was impaired at the time he tripped over a tray of bussed dishes at the restaurant. And Greiwe’s exhibit list included a videotape of a tag-team wrestling match in Nagano, Japan, in October 2001 — more than four months after Blair’s accident in the Carrabba’s on North Dale Mabry Highway. …
Blair claimed his ring career came to an end on the evening of June 2, 2001, when he visited Carrabba’s with his wife and two sons…. Blair, 50, filed the lawsuit on Nov. 5, 2002, three days after losing his first run for public office in a race for a Hillsborough County Commission seat won by Pat Frank. In 2004, Blair, a Republican, tried again and won a commission seat in a close contest against Bob Buckhorn.
He continued to press his case against Carrabba’s even after his original lawyers quit. Attorneys Nadine S. Diaz and Ron Darrigo, who had taken Blair’s case on a contingency basis, withdrew in January 2006, citing “irreconcilable differences” with Blair. …
A record filed by Greiwe of an examination of Blair at St. Joseph’s Hospital about an hour after the accident showed a blood alcohol of 0.089 percent, above the 0.08 level at which state law presumes an individual to be impaired. Greiwe said in court papers that Blair’s fall was the “result of his own negligence.”
Asked in a sworn deposition about his condition, Blair denied drinking before coming to the restaurant, suggesting he might have taken “one sip” of Carrabba’s house wine before the fall.
(Jeff Testerman, “Blair, cafe settle lawsuit”, St. Petersburg Times, Aug. 28).
“Record beer consumption” at Hagens Berman cycling event
There’s nothing intrinsically droll about this report of increased jollity, mirth and conviviality at the 2006 Clif Bar/Hagens Berman Starcrossed Cyclocross race, co-sponsored by the prominent Seattle class-action firm: “The men’s main event was fast, painful, and exciting and it certainly did not disappoint the rowdy pumped up crowds who had been feasting on Pabst Blue Ribbon in the beer garden all day long.” (Cycling News, October). The only potentially humorous note is to those of us who remember Hagens Berman as having thrust itself forward a mere three years ago in the national media as the national scourge of alcohol marketing — beer marketing in particular (Mar. 29, 2004). The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel article we cited at the time, with chapter and verse on the firm’s grandstanding against the sudsy brew, is still online.
Alcohol isn’t tobacco, unfortunately for trial lawyers
Class action lawyers — led by David Boies III, son of famed litigator David Boies — continue to try to attack the alcohol industry the same way they did the tobacco industry, but with far less success. Back in June 2006 we reported that Boies the Younger had been racking up an impressive track record… of losing. His lawsuits are based on the marketing practices of the alcohol companies; the claim is that the advertising was aimed at (who else?) children. But the suits don’t allege any actual harms suffered by, well, anybody. Instead, they claim that the marketing caused the plaintiffs’ underage children to buy alcohol. Even with creative lawyering, the only damages that they could allege were that the kids spent their parents’ money on the alcohol.
The lower courts have laughed these suits out of court, and last month, in response to Boies’ appeals, the Sixth Circuit did the same (PDF), finding that the plaintiffs didn’t even have standing to bring the suits. And when they did so, they gave a little civics reminder of how our legal system is supposed to work:
In any event, if outlawing the actual sale and purchase is insufficient to remedy the alleged injuries (which is the premise underlying the plaintiffs’ theories), then outlawing mere advertising must be insufficient as well. Consequently, the plaintiffs cannot demonstrate redressability. If these plaintiffs are convinced that alcohol advertising (i.e., First Amendment commercial speech) should be outlawed, then the means must be by legislation or constitutional amendment, not by judicial fiat.
In a rational world, this would be the end of these trial lawyer efforts. But since there’s no loser pays, our legal system doesn’t work that way. Trial lawyers can keep filing these over and over again in state after state, tweaking their arguments slightly from time to time, hoping to win the lottery; all they need to do is prevail once to earn back their entire investment in this litigation scheme. Whereas the alcohol companies have to win every one of these suits to avoid a backbreaking financial penalty.
“Ladies’ Nights” lawsuits, cont’d
ABC News files a report on a sector of litigation we’ve covered extensively over the years:
Tim Gleason, general manager of the China Club in New York, calls [attorney Roy Den] Hollander’s complaint “pathetic” and echoes other club owners who argue that the discounts actually help both sexes by balancing out the ratio between men and women….
“Ladies’ Night benefits the men as much as it benefits the ladies, the clubs and society,” said John Juliano, owner of the recently closed Copacabana Nightclub. “And the only loser here is this grouch with a warped point of view.”
GWU lawprof and inveterate publicity hound John Banzhaf, whose “suing for credit” course has generated one such suit, gets a mention too. (Brittany Bacon, “‘Ladies’ Night’ Lawsuits on the Rocks?”, Jul. 25; 239 reader comments so far). More: Lat, Jul. 30.
Virginia Cracks Down on Scourge of People Enjoying Things
Visitors to Rustico restaurant in Alexandria, VA may think they’re merely enjoying an innocent Beersicle (video)- but state regulators seem to think they are practicing their own vigilante brand of thirst amelioration. The new “frozen beer on a stick” offering apparently violates a state law that requires beer be sold in its original container or served immediately after it is poured.
It would seem to me that the beersicle actually serves as a deterrent to consuming large amounts of beer as fast as possible. This isn’t a good thing? Wouldn’t the cops be a little better served by making sure terrorists aren’t amassing a stockpile of bomb pops?
[Update Jul. 2008: state legislature legalizes the pops.]
Breathalyzers-for-everyone, again
This time the awful idea of installing alcohol sensors in everyone’s car has surfaced in Pennsylvania, and in worse form than ever: cars would refuse to start even when a driver’s blood alcohol level was much below the legal maximum. (Radley Balko, Reason “Hit and Run”, Mar. 27). Earlier: May 28, 2006 (New York).