According to State Sen. John Whitmire (D-Houston), the new program to arrest intoxicated Texans in bars whether or not they show any inclination to drive (see Mar. 23) is justified because it nips in the bud potential future misconduct: “Even though a public drunk is not planning on driving, that could change in an instant,” he said. “There is certainly potential danger.” (Pete Slover, “Lawmakers to review bar busts”, Dallas Morning News, Mar. 25). Glenn Reynolds reacts disrespectfully (Mar. 31).
Posts Tagged ‘alcohol’
Don’t Mess with Texas Morals Police: Tavern Patrons Arrested for Intoxication
“Texas has begun sending undercover agents into bars to arrest drinkers for being drunk, a spokeswoman for the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission said,” according to Reuters. Public intoxication is illegal in Texas, and the authorities contend that their preemptive arrests will prevent people from driving drunk or committing other offenses. HT Peaktalk. More: Mar. 31.
Canadian high court to rule on social-host liability
“The Supreme Court of Canada heard arguments [last] Wednesday about a case that will decide if hosts are responsible for the behaviour of their alcohol-consuming guests. The issue stems from a 1999 New Year’s Eve drunk driving accident caused by Desmond Desormeaux, who left a house party near Ottawa after consuming 12 beers.” A victim in the subsequent crash “has been seeking compensation from Desormeaux’s hosts, Julie Zimmerman and Dwight Courrier, for letting him drive home drunk.” The Ontario courts have thus far ruled against her case. (CTV, Jan. 19). See Sept. 12, 2002. Many but not all American states have embraced social-host alcohol liability, and the topic has also stirred controversy in Australia, where the high court of the largest state, New South Wales, rejected the principle recently (Feb. 23, 2005).
Driving while not impaired
More zero tolerance madness: “Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik is calling for a new law that would make any drinking and driving illegal — even if the driver is not impaired.” (Becky Pallack, “Dupnik wants to outlaw any drinking at all by drivers”, Arizona Daily Star (Tucson), Nov. 24)(via Radley Balko). More: DUIBlog, Dec. 1.
MADD’s agenda shift
…from a former mission of fighting drunk driving to a new mission of just fighting drinking, even when no one is attempting to drive a car, is among topics that “deserve a closer look but won’t get it” in the media, according to Glenn Reynolds (Aug. 15). Lawrence Taylor’s DUI Blog has more (Aug. 10), as does Radley Balko, who charges (Aug. 15) that “not only has MADD’s mission changed from keeping the roads safe to preventing consumption of alcohol, they’ll support a position that cuts down on the latter even when it increases the likelihood of drunk driving fatalities.” See also Jun. 17.
Banking while intoxicated
Maggie Rizer earned millions as a successful model, but lost it in defalcations by her stepfather John Breen, who held power of attorney over her bank accounts back in her hometown of Watertown, N.Y. Now she’s suing HSBC, the bank; among her claims is that Breen’s demeanor should have constituted adequate warning that his withdrawals were improper and not in her best interest. The bank’s attorneys, in their motion for dismissal of the claim, argue (among numerous other defenses) that: “HSBC has no duty to screen its customers for use (of) alcohol or any other substance. There is no law prohibiting banking while intoxicated or while using medication. To hold that such a duty exists would place an unreasonable, and illogical duty upon banks.” (“Banking While Intoxicated: No Such Law, Says HSBC In Response To Rizer Lawsuit”, WWTI (Watertown, N.Y.), Jul. 18). In other news of intoxication, Eric Laverriere has sued the Waltham, Mass. police department, which collared him while breaking up a New Year’s Eve party at a friend’s house, then took him into “protective custody” and a nine-hour lockup. His suit contends that he had not caused any public disturbance and that drinking in private falls constitutionally short of adequate grounds for arrest. (Shelley Murphy, “Lawsuit asserts right to get drunk on private property”, Boston Globe, Jul. 8). Wave Maker (Jul. 8) has more details.
Long sentences for liquor-serving mom and dad
Draconian character of philanthropic legislation, cont’d:
The Virginia Court of Appeals upheld yesterday the convictions of an Albemarle County couple sentenced to 27 months in jail for providing alcohol at their son’s 16th birthday in August 2002.
George and Elisa Robinson were sentenced originally in Albemarle Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court to eight years in prison but received the lesser terms after they appealed to Circuit Court….
The Robinsons have acknowledged a mistake in judgment but said they decided to provide alcohol in a safe environment to make sure that no one at the party would be driving under the influence of alcohol.
Cops had entered the couple’s property without a warrant; according to the Richmond paper, no sentence as high as 90 days had previously been handed down locally for a similar offense. (Alan Cooper, “Court upholds couple’s sentence”, Richmond Times-Dispatch, May 18). Radley Balko has more (May 27).
Update: Judge dismisses “happy hour” antitrust case
Last year, after taverns in Madison, Wisconsin bowed to pressure from official programs discouraging youth drinking and agreed to end “happy hour” discounts in the university town, a law firm from Minneapolis swooped down to file an antitrust suit demanding millions for the offense of having colluded to charge higher prices (see Mar. 29, 2004). Now, however, Circuit Judge Angela B. Bartell has dismissed the suit on summary judgment, finding that the bar owners had acted against their will under regulatory constraint. An alderman who represents the downtown area where most of the bars are located “said bar owners had racked up more than $250,000 in legal fees defending themselves”; given our lack of a loser-pays rule, they have no expectation that either attorney Steven Uhr or the three students on whose behalf he filed the action will chip in to defray any of those outlays. (Ryan J. Foley, “Judge: Bars didn’t fix price of drinks”, AP/Capital Times, Apr. 8; Megan Costello, “Judge dismisses drink special suit”, Badger Herald, Apr. 8).
New post category: “Eat, Drink and Be Merry”
It’s been a while since we’ve added any new topical categories, so we’ve just created one that’s been overdue: Eat Drink and Be Merry, covering lawsuits over bacon cheeseburgers and obesity, booze sales, foreign objects that turn up in the chili or bottled water, calorie-labeling goofs, and, of course, hot coffee spills. We might throw in a few related stories about claims of “addictive” entertainment, too. Several of these topics are obviously closely related to the themes of our ever-popular personal responsibility subpage, which will remain unchanged.
A word about our topical pages (which are a great way to use the site for research, or just browse what we’ve published on a topic you find of interest): our subpage on product liability is a catch-all for cases in that category that don’t fit into the more specific pages covering guns, tobacco, cars, aircraft, microchips, and so forth (and now food and drink). If you’re interested in product liability as a general subject, you should consider visiting these other pages too. And our subpage on environmental law ranges somewhat afield to take in topics that include zoning, landmark preservation, mold claims and (always a favorite) animal rights. The full list of topics can be found along the right column of Overlawyered’s front page, just below the list of archives arranged by month.
More on the $105 million Aramark verdict
We previously reported (Jan. 21) on Daniel Lanzaro’s drunk driving accident litigation; the little girl he paralyzed won a $105 million verdict against Aramark over beer sales at Giants Stadium because Lanzaro did some of his drinking there that day, in part by bribing a beer vendor to ignore Aramark’s two-beer-per-purchase rules. (Before the game, Lanzaro purchased a six-pack of Heineken; he did some drinking at two strip-clubs after the game, as well.) The New Jersey Law Journal has more on the case:
- The NFL defendants settled for $700,000, despite prevailing on a summary judgment motion;
- Judge Richard Donohue excluded evidence that Antonia Verni’s father might have prevented the injuries to his daughter had he put the two-year-old in a car seat rather than an adult seat-belt;
- Verni also sued Toyota; Verni’s Corolla didn’t fare well when Lanzaro’s pickup slammed into it head-on, and Toyota paid $190,000 to get out of the case;
- There’s collateral litigation to be had among plaintiffs’ family members and sets of lawyers over who gets the money. And, of course, there will be an appeal.
As previously reported, the judge also excluded evidence of Lanzaro’s two previous drunk-driving arrests. (Henry Gottlieb, “In Wake of Record $105M Verdict, Fee Fights and Coverage Contests Emerge”, Feb. 2; Wayne Coffey, “Wasted Innocence”, NY Daily News, Jan. 30; Kibret Markos, “Expert backs beer vendor”, The Record, Jan. 12). As famous sportswriter/treacle-author Mitch Albom notes, “Either your stadium goes dry, or people will leave drunk.”
A correction: we previously reported that the entire $135 million verdict was awarded against Aramark; in fact, $30 million of the verdict is damages against the drunk driver, Daniel Lanzaro, who had already settled for the limits of his insurance coverage. Aramark’s share is $30 million compensatory, $75 million punitive, and about $6-7 million in interest, with the interest continuing to accumulate. After he settled with the plaintiffs, Lanzaro changed his story to be more favorable to the Vernis’ case. (Ana M. Alaya, “Lawyer for Giants Stadium beer vendor loses bid for mistrial”, Newark Star-Ledger, Jan. 13).
An additional thought: A big argument for plaintiffs at trial was the claim that Aramark, which serves to the two million or so fans who attend football games at Giants stadium each year, had been averaging about seven complaints a year for selling beer to drunks, but only took disciplinary action a fraction of the time. The press hasn’t covered Aramark’s response to this assertion, but one wonders if fear of employment litigation stayed its hand. Earlier damned-if-you, damned-if-you-don’t files include Aug. 30.
Another point: A reader writes to note that Aramark was probably selling watered-down beer, which would be further evidence that post-game drinking was responsible for Lanzaro’s .266 blood-alcohol level, though, again, it shouldn’t matter: Aramark didn’t make the guy drive drunk.