Australian Politics Forum - Pub liable for drink-drive death

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39522 Gender:	Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death Reply #15 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 12:31pm calanen - amadd's probably gone starry eyed for you. Trying to repress ones own emotions is a struggle. We wish you well amadd
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

mantra Gold Member Offline ozpolitic.com Posts: 10750 Gender:	Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death Reply #16 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 12:59pm Amadd would only have been joking. You can always tell the difference when you've been posting alongside someone for a while. You just have to get used to his sense of humour. No-one hates you Calanen!
Back to top	IP Logged

Happy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 559

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #17 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 1:48pm

I will never agree with this line of thought.

Personal responsibility should protect us from doing silly things, not duty of care of others.

Especially in palces where different people can have legally different levels of intoxication.

He could have simply said:

Give me my keys back as so and so is going to ride/drive me back.
He could have said we will push bike on the ute or truck or any other excuse, like: I am cold and I have jumper there ...

Why we go nappy service way for adults beats me!

Back to top

IP Logged

Amadd Gold Member Offline Mo Posts: 6217	Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death Reply #18 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 1:55pm My apologies Calanen. Shiftwork and boredom is what I really hate. I was trying a trifle too hard to start an argument and I really didn't mean it to come out like that. Thank God I don't own a motorbike.
Back to top	IP Logged

Calanen

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2241

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #19 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 4:16pm

Amadd wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 1:55pm:

My apologies Calanen. Shiftwork and boredom is what I really hate. I was trying a trifle Roll Eyes

too hard to start an argument and I really didn't mean it to come out like that. Thank God I don't own a motorbike.

That's ok, we all have bad days, me included.

I am all for more common sense laws and so on, but if you are any person who takes keys from a person who is intoxicated and then gives them back while they are still intoxicated, the law is going to hold you responsible. Better to say, ok, I'll drop em in at the local cop shop for you so you wont hurt yourself and you can pick them up when you are sober. There is no way that the cops will let them have them before they've sobered up.

Back to top

Quote:

ISLAM is a vicious [un-reformable] political tyranny, which has always murdered its critics, and it continues that practice even today.

Yadda

IP Logged

Calanen

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2241

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #20 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 4:18pm

mantra wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 12:59pm:

Amadd would only have been joking. You can always tell the difference when you've been posting alongside someone for a while. You just have to get used to his sense of humour.

No-one hates you Calanen! Roll Eyes

Actually, people do, they would line up around the block. They don't really know me though, very few people who actually know me well hate me (might find me annoying, but that's another thing).

Back to top

Quote:

ISLAM is a vicious [un-reformable] political tyranny, which has always murdered its critics, and it continues that practice even today.

Yadda

IP Logged

locutius

Gold Member

Offline

You can't fight in here!
It's the War Room

Posts: 1817
Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #21 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 4:34pm

Pisshead rights himself off and everyone else is to blame and shell out for his loss to the gene pool. Hoo-bloody-ray!!

He handed over his keys initially because he was concerned about being booked it seems, not for his own or anyone elses safety it seems. THAT I think should have been a crucial point.

I also wonder if the implication for a duty of care was increased by the staff member accepting the keys. What if they had refused to accept the keys in the first place.

What of the other drinkers? Who is driving and who is not? Is there a compulsory survey? Were other people buying him drinks? Did he by 4 during happy hour and knock'em back fast under the pretence of buying a round?

Also the degree of acceptable intoxication varies whether someone IS intending to drive or not doesn't it. I could be well over the limit but far from legless, and therefore able to continue drinking acceptably BECAUSE I am not driving.

If this is an accepted legal onus of Duty of Care then it is simple to rig up a meter box. The keys are placed inside and if the accepted limit is blown, a reciept pops out, it is signed, and the keys are handed over. There are still ways around it but at least a standard has been met. I know, you are thinking what a level of ridiculousness is that. Agreed, so am I. But you gotta wonder where the cut off point is.

At least the "Bloody idiot" didn't kill anyone else.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 4:41pm by locutius »

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

IP Logged

Happy

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 559

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #22 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 7:07pm

locutius wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 4:34pm:

Pisshead rights himself off and everyone else is to blame and shell out for his loss to the gene pool. Hoo-bloody-ray!!

He handed over his keys initially because he was concerned about being booked it seems, not for his own or anyone elses safety it seems. THAT I think should have been a crucial point.

I also wonder if the implication for a duty of care was increased by the staff member accepting the keys. What if they had refused to accept the keys in the first place.

What of the other drinkers? Who is driving and who is not? Is there a compulsory survey? Were other people buying him drinks? Did he by 4 during happy hour and knock'em back fast under the pretence of buying a round?

Also the degree of acceptable intoxication varies whether someone IS intending to drive or not doesn't it. I could be well over the limit but far from legless, and therefore able to continue drinking acceptably BECAUSE I am not driving.

If this is an accepted legal onus of Duty of Care then it is simple to rig up a meter box. The keys are placed inside and if the accepted limit is blown, a reciept pops out, it is signed, and the keys are handed over. There are still ways around it but at least a standard has been met. I know, you are thinking what a level of ridiculousness is that. Agreed, so am I. But you gotta wonder where the cut off point is.

At least the "Bloody idiot" didn't kill anyone else.

Exactly, and that's why I think people should take responsibility for their own actions.

I feel sorry, but for poor publican entangled in this mess.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47443
At my desk.

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #23 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 9:08pm

Calanen wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2009 at 11:05pm:

freediver wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2009 at 7:24pm:

Quote:

I'm surprised though this got through Tasmania's Civil Liability Act, which is quite harsh.

How so?

Long story. But, the short version:

CIVIL LIABILITY ACT 2002 (NO. 54 OF 2002) - SECT 5

5. Presumption of contributory negligence where person intoxicated

(1) If it is established that the person whose death, injury or damage is the subject of proceedings for the recovery of damages was, at the time of the act or omission that caused the death, injury or damage, intoxicated to the extent that the person's capacity to exercise due care and skill was impaired, it is to be presumed that the person was contributorily negligent unless the court is satisfied that the person's intoxication did not contribute in any way to the cause of the death, injury or damage.

(2) If there is a presumption of contributory negligence, the court is to assess damages on the basis that the damages to which the person would be entitled in the absence of contributory negligence are to be reduced on account of contributory negligence by 25% or a greater or lesser percentage determined by the court to be appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

(3) The onus of satisfying the court that damages ought to be reduced on account of contributory negligence by a percentage of less than 25% is on the person whose death, injury or damage is the subject of the proceedings for the recovery of damages.

(4) This section does not apply in a case where the court is satisfied that the intoxication was not self-induced.

(5) Subject to subsection (6), a reference in this section to a person being "intoxicated" is a reference to a person being under the influence of alcohol or a drug (whether or not taken for a medicinal purpose and whether or not lawfully taken).

(6) A person who has taken a drug for a medicinal purpose is not to be taken to be intoxicated for the purposes of this section if the person satisfies the court that he or she was not aware of the effect of the drug taken.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/tas/num_act/cla200254o2002207/s5.html

Was there contributory negligence in this case?

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

Sprintcyclist Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 39522 Gender:	Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death Reply #24 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 9:55pm Suppose one of my customers whom I get drunk gives me his keys one night because he is drinking and has his motorcycle there AND cops are around. Then later on he is drunk and slurredly asks me for his keys back. I should say no. That's what the law means.
Back to top	Modern Classic Right Wing IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Online

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47443
At my desk.

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #25 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 10:27pm

Quote:

Is it law that everybody has to care for the welfare others?

Actually there is a fundamental presumption of a basic level of duty of care that has been around for a long time, I think as long as the concept of common law. However, in this, there is a significant extra duty of care associated with the licence to sell intoxicating drugs to the public for immediate consumption and for recreational purposes.

Quote:

Don't be fooled by the imagined intent of these types of laws, the real intent is to sap every ounce of free judgement from the masses.

Whatever the court decides, the guy is still dead. Being able to sue someone doesn't make it hurt any less. Furthermore the widow suffered a genuine loss through no fault of her own due to the negligence of the pub owner.

Quote:

Personal responsibility should protect us from doing silly things, not duty of care of others.

What's the difference?

Quote:

Pisshead rights himself off and everyone else is to blame and shell out for his loss to the gene pool. Hoo-bloody-ray!!

No, the person who profited from his intoxication, who had certain obligations under their licence to profit from his intoxication, and who handed control of a vehicle to a drunk has to shell out. It is nothing to do with you.

Quote:

He handed over his keys initially because he was concerned about being booked it seems, not for his own or anyone elses safety it seems.

Now you're just making stuff up. Handing your keys to the publican is a good idea.

Quote:

If this is an accepted legal onus of Duty of Care then it is simple to rig up a meter box. The keys are placed inside and if the accepted limit is blown, a reciept pops out, it is signed, and the keys are handed over. There are still ways around it but at least a standard has been met.

So basically it does the same thing but costs a fortune? What makes you think adding an expensive machine to the equation is going to stop people doing stupid poo?

Quote:

Suppose one of my customers whom I get drunk gives me his keys one night because he is drinking and has his motorcycle there AND cops are around.
Then later on he is drunk and slurredly asks me for his keys back.

I should say no.

That's what the law means.

That would be the right thing to do. Although I wouldn't put a mate in that position, as he is likely to be drunk too. I actually tried to take the keys of a drunk mate one night. I wasn't successful, but he made it home anyway.

Back to top

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!

IP Logged

mantra

Gold Member

Offline

ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #26 - Jul 3^rd, 2009 at 10:42pm

Quote:

That would be the right thing to do. Although I wouldn't put a mate in that position, as he is likely to be drunk too. I actually tried to take the keys of a drunk mate one night. I wasn't successful, but he made it home anyway.

FD - if that mate had been drinking at your place and he was killed on the way home - you would have probably been personally responsible and could possibly face civil action - although I'm not sure if criminal action would apply.

You couldn't stop your mate - how does a stranger stop someone, particularly if he doesn't know how much the drunk has had to drink? People can be pretty aggressive when they think they're OK to drive after drinking heavily.

Back to top

IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #27 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 1:29am

Quote:

Quote:
Is it law that everybody has to care for the welfare others?

Actually there is a fundamental presumption of a basic level of duty of care that has been around for a long time, I think as long as the concept of common law. However, in this, there is a significant extra duty of care associated with the licence to sell intoxicating drugs to the public for immediate consumption and for recreational purposes.

The way I see it, is that contriving more and more laws to force people into caring for their fellow humans under threat of punishment actually has a detrimental effect on what they really care about.
All that this shows me is that there is no longer any value placed on the freedom to make mistakes. ...and where would we be today if no mistakes were ever made?
Are we so full of ourselves that we think that we're the finished product? Can our future be mapped out in the words of a book? No book has thus far succeeded in accomplishing this magnificent feat, not even the awe inspiring quran, so why would anybody think that the conditions of today will hold true for tomorrow?
Live and let die. Although that guy on the motorbike made a stupid mistake, it may well be worth more for the future than if he was never allowed to make his own personal mistakes. It's far better than living in fear of punishment from those who want to raise sheltered kids who will have negative value for the future.i

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Online www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 47443 At my desk.	Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death Reply #28 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 9:35am What if he had killed someone else instead of himself? Would you tell him to live and let die? The fact that he was the one who suffered is kind of irrelevant here. It's not like he is going to get the money.
Back to top	I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT! IP Logged

Amadd

Gold Member

Offline

Mo

Posts: 6217

Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #29 - Jul 4^th, 2009 at 3:23pm

Quote:

Was there contributory negligence in this case?

Yes there was contributory negligence all over the place.
There's the pub who sold him the grog.
There's his wife who probably knew him better than any other but still let him ride his motorbike to the pub.
There's the government who profiteers from the sale of alcohol.
There's the motorbike company who sells vehicles which are able to be ridden while under the influence.
There may have somebody who pissed him off and made him drink more than usual.
And maybe the alcohol wasn't the only factor in his loss of control of the motorbike. Maybe a poorly maintained road contributed as well.
...etc. ..etc.

I'm not saying that it wouldn't have been the right thing to do by refusing him his keys, but once a normal peson turns 18, they have to be responsible for their own actions, otherwise we'll end up with even more of a nanny country than we're stuck with now.

Back to top

IP Logged