Chapter #12 Serving Alcohol Liability
Scenario #1: Suzie, the Badlands Bar, and John Sulliovan While most of the states enforce injured people; who were injured by an intoxicated individual, to file against the commercial bar or restaurant who sold the alcohol, the circumstances point that the bar exercised reasonable care. As a consequence, John Sullivan has no case against the Badlands Bar, considering that the bartender requested her identification, which indicates that she was twenty-one. Therefore, she can legally have a drink. For the bartender was impossible to know that she came to the bar with a fake ID. Unfortunately, bartenders are not investigators and have no way to know which ID is not valid. Of course, according to the law, if the ID looks altered, counterfeit, stolen, borrowed or fraudulently obtained utilizing a false birth certificate, and the bartender observed one of these …show more content…
However, if he files a lawsuit against both bars, its most likely that the Badlands Bar will not be liable. Unfortunately, the Sweet Sally’s Bar and Grill, is liable considering that he was visibly intoxicated (foreseeable) and will probably have to pay compensatory damages, because they allowed the intoxicated individual to ride their mechanical bull. Riding a mechanical bull, clearly requires sobriety to prevail on it. He certainly Mr. Harris has a legal recourse against the Sweet Sally’s Bar and Grill, because they were negligent. Finally, they will be liable, because bars are mandated to stop serving alcohol to a person who is visibly intoxicated. While the Sweet Sally did not sell him alcohol, they let him to take the risk of being injured by their dangerous bull. However, there is a little risk that the Badlands can alsio be partially liable, because they did not provide transportation to Mr. Harris, as they suppose to, according to the
Scenario #1: Suzie, the Badlands Bar, and John Sulliovan While most of the states enforce injured people; who were injured by an intoxicated individual, to file against the commercial bar or restaurant who sold the alcohol, the circumstances point that the bar exercised reasonable care. As a consequence, John Sullivan has no case against the Badlands Bar, considering that the bartender requested her identification, which indicates that she was twenty-one. Therefore, she can legally have a drink. For the bartender was impossible to know that she came to the bar with a fake ID. Unfortunately, bartenders are not investigators and have no way to know which ID is not valid. Of course, according to the law, if the ID looks altered, counterfeit, stolen, borrowed or fraudulently obtained utilizing a false birth certificate, and the bartender observed one of these …show more content…
However, if he files a lawsuit against both bars, its most likely that the Badlands Bar will not be liable. Unfortunately, the Sweet Sally’s Bar and Grill, is liable considering that he was visibly intoxicated (foreseeable) and will probably have to pay compensatory damages, because they allowed the intoxicated individual to ride their mechanical bull. Riding a mechanical bull, clearly requires sobriety to prevail on it. He certainly Mr. Harris has a legal recourse against the Sweet Sally’s Bar and Grill, because they were negligent. Finally, they will be liable, because bars are mandated to stop serving alcohol to a person who is visibly intoxicated. While the Sweet Sally did not sell him alcohol, they let him to take the risk of being injured by their dangerous bull. However, there is a little risk that the Badlands can alsio be partially liable, because they did not provide transportation to Mr. Harris, as they suppose to, according to the