Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print
Pub liable for drink-drive death (Read 6587 times)
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Pub liable for drink-drive death
Jul 1st, 2009 at 9:55pm
 
http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/01/19/50511_tasmania-news.html

A WOMAN has successfully sued a Tasmanian pub over the death of her husband in a drink-driving crash.
Shane Scott was killed when he crashed his motorcycle while riding home from the Tandara Motor Inn at Triabunna, on Tasmania's east coast, on January 24 2002.

At the time of his death Mr Scott had a blood alcohol reading more than five times the legal limit.

In Hobart this morning the full court of the Supreme Court found the hotel and its then-licensee Michael Andrew Kirkpatrick owed a duty of care to Mr Scott.

In a majority decision, the court found the duty of care was breached and that Mr Scott's widow Sandra should be awarded damages for her husband's death.

That ruling -- thought to be a first in Australia -- overturned the Supreme Court's original dismissal of Mrs Scott's lawsuit in late 2007.

The court heard Mr Scott was drinking at the Tandara Motor Inn after work.

There was talk of police being in the area so he gave his motorbike keys to Mr Kirkpatrick.

But later, having consuming up to eight cans of Jack Daniels and cola, Mr Scott retrieved the keys and rode off.

One of the full court judges, Peter Evans, said Mr Kirkpatrick and the hotel had a duty to take "reasonable care to avoid Mr Scott riding the motor cycle from the hotel whilst intoxicated".

A further hearing will be held at a later date to determine the level of damages the widow is entitled to.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 39429
Gender: male
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #1 - Jul 1st, 2009 at 9:59pm
 

Good ruling by the judge.
They normally get it right.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #2 - Jul 2nd, 2009 at 8:50am
 
It might appear to be a good ruling to some, but when are people going to take responsibility for themselves. When this bloke "retrieved" his keys - he could have been aggressive to a young staff member or he might have seemed OK.  How do busy bar staff keep track of what everyone has had to drink?

These law suits instigated by gamblers and alcoholics, who demand  compensation for their losses, shouldn't be given any credence.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #3 - Jul 2nd, 2009 at 9:34am
 
mantra wrote on Jul 2nd, 2009 at 8:50am:
How do busy bar staff keep track of what everyone has had to drink?

Easy. Just don't serve the guy staggering round the pool table with vomit down his shirt singing Khe Sahn.
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
Calanen
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2241
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #4 - Jul 2nd, 2009 at 9:49am
 
There is nothing exceptional about this. The law and taverns and giving patrons way too much to drink goes back a long long way.

Once the bar was into taking keys from him and so on, they really had extended their duty of care to cover this situation if it was in doubt before.

If however, someone else had been buying him drinks so they didnt know how smashed he was (putting to one side the keys) then they might  have been in the clear.

Observable intoxication is the key, what did everyone see about the state of his intoxication? I'm surprised though this got through Tasmania's Civil Liability Act, which is quite harsh.
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
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 39429
Gender: male
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #5 - Jul 2nd, 2009 at 10:07am
 

yes, by taking his keys from him, they have assumed a good level of responsibility.
By giving them back when he was blotto and on a motorbike .........


One thing that bugs me about this sort of people is how they are determined to drink but not get arrested for DUI.
Being arrested may be the best thing that could happen to them for their whole lives !
As this case unfortunately shows.
Look at ALL the possible outcomes, death, death to another, crippled for life, crippling others, getting arrested, getting home.

being nabbed is a good outcome.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #6 - Jul 2nd, 2009 at 7:24pm
 
Quote:
I'm surprised though this got through Tasmania's Civil Liability Act, which is quite harsh.


How so?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #7 - Jul 2nd, 2009 at 10:21pm
 
Double winner for the widow. She got rid from unwanted husband and got money while doing so.

Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
Calanen
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2241
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #8 - Jul 2nd, 2009 at 11:05pm
 
freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 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
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
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #9 - Jul 3rd, 2009 at 2:11am
 
Like Mantra, I disagree with this ruling.
IMO, It's just another ridiculous law which adds some more boiling water into the pot of boiling frogs.
Is it law that everybody has to care for the welfare others?
Well if it is, then there are a million new laws in need of being added to our already suffocating legal system.
This horrendous type of dictatorship actually has the opposite effect, in that it is stealing all that allows people to actually give a toss in the first place.
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.








Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 3rd, 2009 at 2:25am by Amadd »  
 
IP Logged
 
Calanen
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2241
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #10 - Jul 3rd, 2009 at 5:02am
 
Amadd wrote on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 2:11am:
Like Mantra, I disagree with this ruling.
IMO, It's just another ridiculous law which adds some more boiling water into the pot of boiling frogs.

[quote]Is it law that everybody has to care for the welfare others?
Well if it is, then there are a million new laws in need of being added to our already suffocating legal system.


No, you have to care once you become responsible in some way.

It's mostly suffocating through crime, not civil litigation just quietly. Oh noes, the rich insurance companies might have to pay some money!

Quote:
This horrendous type of dictatorship actually has the opposite effect, in that it is stealing all that allows people to actually give a toss in the first pla
ce.


Dictatorship? I'll have to put my black shirt on.

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.


The law has been around for hundreds of years, its not a new 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
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #11 - Jul 3rd, 2009 at 5:47am
 
Quote:
The law has been around for hundreds of years, its not a new thing.


Do tell where opinion becomes a crime.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #12 - Jul 3rd, 2009 at 5:56am
 
A little stuck there Calanen?

You are the self-professed lawmaker, so you must tell me where the line is between opion and crime...is there one?

You tell me you icon you.

Feckon moron.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #13 - Jul 3rd, 2009 at 6:17am
 
Sorry about that chief.
It was the wrong way to troll for an argument.

Back to top
« Last Edit: Jul 4th, 2009 at 4:16pm by Amadd »  
 
IP Logged
 
Calanen
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2241
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #14 - Jul 3rd, 2009 at 12:16pm
 
Amadd wrote on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 6:17am:
Still waiting but the bottom line is that you can't answer can you Calanen?
You think that you know everything about the law, but you have no fukcing idea about the very most important aspect of the laws that you prentend to make....you pretentious ugly fuicking creep... I hate you so very very much.



Dear oh dear, you really have thrown the toys out of the pram this morning.

Perhaps enrol in one of those anger management courses, vitriolic hatred of people you don't know about inconsequential matters is a sure sign of impending mental collapse.

Get the dosage of your lithium correct and then perhaps have another go.
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
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 39429
Gender: male
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #15 - Jul 3rd, 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: female
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #16 - Jul 3rd, 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
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Happy
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 559
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #17 - Jul 3rd, 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 3rd, 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.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Calanen
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 2241
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #19 - Jul 3rd, 2009 at 4:16pm
 
Amadd wrote on Jul 3rd, 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 3rd, 2009 at 4:18pm
 
mantra wrote on Jul 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 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 3rd, 2009 at 7:07pm
 
locutius wrote on Jul 3rd, 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
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #23 - Jul 3rd, 2009 at 9:08pm
 
Calanen wrote on Jul 2nd, 2009 at 11:05pm:
freediver wrote on Jul 2nd, 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!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 39429
Gender: male
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #24 - Jul 3rd, 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
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #25 - Jul 3rd, 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!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #26 - Jul 3rd, 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 4th, 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
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #28 - Jul 4th, 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!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #29 - Jul 4th, 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
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #30 - Jul 4th, 2009 at 3:36pm
 
You missed the point of the question Amadd. It was about whether the vcourt determined that there was contributory negiligence.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #31 - Jul 4th, 2009 at 5:08pm
 
Well they did determine it didn't they?
I wonder how the decision would've gone 30yrs ago? It probably would've been laughed out of court.
It seems that even in the last two years we've slipped further into this stupid belief system.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Online


OzPolitic

Posts: 39429
Gender: male
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #32 - Jul 4th, 2009 at 6:02pm
 

amadd - yes, 30 years ago it would not have even made it to court.
even 15 years ago, it would have been very doubtful.


i agree with the judgment.
I have often asked my guests that they are not driving home drunk.
If i thought they were, I'ld try to stop them.
If they were pissed, I would not give them their keys.

That's what the ruling says, imho.
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #33 - Jul 4th, 2009 at 6:29pm
 
That's great to do that Sprint, but I just don't think that people in the hospitality business should be under threat to have to do it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #34 - Jul 4th, 2009 at 8:48pm
 
Oooooh!!!!

I love this Thread.

As a Cabbie (and I personally drive, only day time shifts) I get very very, annoyed when I get a job to pick up Gareth from the Nambour Royal George Hotel, to drive him home, the very short distance he walked to the Pub at around 10.00 am.

It really runs me.

The publican has taken his money (for years, every day) fills him full of piss, and then calls us to take the gibbering wreck home.

Gareth (his real name) will never be able to sue me if he has some mishap getting out of my Cab, because I will not ever allow the drunken Welshman access to my Cab.

Newbie Cabbies get sucked in and when Gareth goes arse over apex and sues the Cabbie, the Royal George Hotel will be joined to the action.

The lesson is:

They (the Pubs) fill them full of piss for commercial gain. Ergo, they get these piss heads home safely themselves.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #35 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 9:35am
 
Amadd wrote on Jul 4th, 2009 at 5:08pm:
I wonder how the decision would've gone 30yrs ago? It probably would've been laughed out of court.
It seems that even in the last two years we've slipped further into this stupid belief system.


You are right Amadd, although I'm wondering if it wasn't more stupid & dangerous back then. I was given a police escort home one night - less than 30 years ago. I had been talking to two detectives at a club after work and when I went to catch a taxi - they offered to drive behind me in case I was pulled over by the local police. I was definitely over the limit and home was 15 km away. They did drive behind me and got me home safely (& unconditionally), but I could have been killed or killed someone.

Laws were very lax then, but now with the population doubled - there's more of a chance of killing someone else apart from yourself. We have to have them in place - nobody (apart from the family) cares that much about a drunk getting killed, but when whole innocent families are wiped out - it's a different story.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #36 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 2:56pm
 
You weren't showing a bit of leg were you Mantra?  Wink
They didn't give you a police escort home out of the goodness of their own hearts, they thought there may be a chance of something in return.

I think that good education is really the only way to allow people to make the right decisions. Threatening behavior by an oppressive legal system carries with it it's own responsibilities. If they want to continue down this path, then they'd better start supplying some damned good drugs free of charge to help counter the (largely unreported) shameful depression and suicide rate that we have in this country.




Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #37 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 8:30pm
 
Amadd wrote on Jul 5th, 2009 at 2:56pm:
You weren't showing a bit of leg were you Mantra?  Wink
They didn't give you a police escort home out of the goodness of their own hearts, they thought there may be a chance of something in return.

I think that good education is really the only way to allow people to make the right decisions. Threatening behavior by an oppressive legal system carries with it it's own responsibilities. If they want to continue down this path, then they'd better start supplying some damned good drugs free of charge to help counter the (largely unreported) shameful depression and suicide rate that we have in this country.


You're very cynical aren't you Amadd? People can do nice things for others out of the goodness of their heart.  I knew these men anyway so I used their services, not the other way around - although in retrospect it was very stupid.

Threatening legal behaviour works on most people as they mature. It's only when you're young and thoughtless that you disregard the laws. Although in the long run it makes no difference - there aren't enough police around to enforce most of these laws anyway.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #38 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 9:42pm
 
Quote:
People can do nice things for others out of the goodness of their heart.


These are police we are talking about mantra. Didn't you say they followed your taxi home?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #39 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 9:44pm
 
No - they followed my car home. I drove carefully though.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #40 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 9:54pm
 
I get it now  Undecided That was a crazy thing for them to do. But then again, love makes men do crazy things. Did you at least offer them a cup of coffee?
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
NorthOfNorth
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 17258
Gender: male
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #41 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 9:57pm
 
mantra wrote on Jul 5th, 2009 at 9:44pm:
No - they followed my car home. I drove carefully though.

You suuure they was cops?
Back to top
 

Conviction is the art of being certain
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #42 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 10:08pm
 
You've got it all wrong. They were just being nice. They were detectives that I knew through my work and those sort of incidents weren't too uncommon years ago. In fact it all happened at Iguana's nightclub (Iguanagate) which is where detectives used to meet up, but it was called something different back then. The whole area was corrupt and lawless, although it has improved over the last few years - I think.

And no FD - they didn't get invited in for a cup of coffee.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #43 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 10:34pm
 
Yes, pissed detectives escorting drink driver because goodness of their good hearts was very common 30 years back. Roger Rogerson did it all the time.
Mantra, you must've been a stunner back then as I'm sure you are now but alas the Police Integrity Commission put the end to such police gallantry.

Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #44 - Jul 5th, 2009 at 10:35pm
 
Quote:
You're very cynical aren't you Amadd?


Grin Yes I suppose I am.
I do believe people do nice things for no return all the time, however, a lot of times there may be underlying motives which shouldn't be ignored either.
I don't know how the situation with those cops evolved, but from a blokes POV, it probably stands out as being fairly obvious that there was at least a little bit of ulterior motive there.


Back to top
 
 
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 #45 - Jul 6th, 2009 at 7:41am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 10:27pm:
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.


True, it didn't cost me anything but it I am at least able to say that as sad as it may be for his family, that's one less drunk driver on the road. It's a pity all drunk drivers can't be so accommodating.

freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 10:27pm:
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.


Yes it is a good idea but the original post say "There was talk of police being in the area so he gave his motorbike keys to Mr Kirkpatrick."

freediver wrote on Jul 3rd, 2009 at 10:27pm:
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?


That's why I even agreed that my own suggestion was a bit over the top. The point was that the decision to hand the keys back was not only measurable but taken from the hands of staff that may be otherwise subject to abuse or violence from a drunk that now wants to go home and bugger anyone that wants to stop him. A simpler, less costly to the pub, solution would be for partrons to sign over their keys and they are put into a timelock safe that is not reopened until pub opening hours the next morning.

The other point I was trying to make is that not everyone drinking at the pub drove there or intends to drive home. So unless a survey is done of each and every customer then bar staff are in an impossible position to determine the level of enebriation that is too much or just right. For instance I can be 3 times the legal limit to drive but still far from being legless and stupid, so being a person that is cabbing or walking home should still be able to buy a drink.
Back to top
 

I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #46 - Jul 6th, 2009 at 9:41am
 
I wonder if deceased wife was truly concerned about his well-being why didn't she stop him riding to the pub?
Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
mantra
Gold Member
*****
Offline


ozpolitic.com

Posts: 10750
Gender: female
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #47 - Jul 6th, 2009 at 10:21am
 
I agree Tallow. If she cared and knew he was a drinker, she would have dropped him off and picked him up - or at least insisted he take a taxi. You have to be stupid to get on a bike anyway - let alone ride one drunk.

He was a disaster waiting to happen obviously. If she was really smart - she would have taken out an insurance policy on his life as well.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #48 - Jul 6th, 2009 at 10:42am
 
mantra wrote on Jul 6th, 2009 at 10:21am:
I agree Tallow. If she cared and knew he was a drinker, she would have dropped him off and picked him up - or at least insisted he take a taxi. You have to be stupid to get on a bike anyway - let alone ride one drunk.

He was a disaster waiting to happen obviously. If she was really smart - she would have taken out an insurance policy on his life as well.


I'd like to know if a question like that was disallowed in the court room?

Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #49 - Jul 6th, 2009 at 7:09pm
 
Quote:
The point was that the decision to hand the keys back was not only measurable but taken from the hands of staff that may be otherwise subject to abuse or violence from a drunk that now wants to go home and bugger anyone that wants to stop him.


If you can't handle drunks you shouldn't be working in a bar. All bar staff are legally required to refuse service to intoxicated persons, no matter who they try to bugger. Obviously that includes not fetching keys for them.

Quote:
A simpler, less costly to the pub, solution would be for partrons to sign over their keys and they are put into a timelock safe that is not reopened until pub opening hours the next morning.


What if you don't have keys on you? What if you are only stopping in for a drink on the way home from work? What if you are the designated driver? All systems depend on the people operating them, and the one in use is perfectly fine.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Amadd
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Mo

Posts: 6217
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #50 - Jul 7th, 2009 at 2:17am
 
But isn't that much of the argument here FD - What if? what if? what if?

You don't really know the situation unless you are personally involved yourself, and even then you're judgement might not be entirely correct.

Most especially in social situations, body language speaks louder than words. If I was a staff member in a bar working for a few bucks and somebody asked for their keys back whilst giving me a look that said "if you don't do it, there's gonna be big trouble", it's an easy decision, I'd give the keys back. However, in a courtroom situation, those words would count against the staff member.




Back to top
 
 
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 #51 - Jul 7th, 2009 at 8:43am
 
freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2009 at 7:09pm:
Quote:
The point was that the decision to hand the keys back was not only measurable but taken from the hands of staff that may be otherwise subject to abuse or violence from a drunk that now wants to go home and bugger anyone that wants to stop him.


If you can't handle drunks you shouldn't be working in a bar. All bar staff are legally required to refuse service to intoxicated persons, no matter who they try to bugger. Obviously that includes not fetching keys for them.


Yes that is not an invallid point FD but I also think that bar staff should not be constantly in positions where they risk personal injury because others are afraid of the risk of personal responsibility. Serving intoxicated persons is also relies on a judgment that puts the focus of blame and responsibility on another party.

What is intoxicated?? Many drinkers can be well over the legal limit without being legless. they may be 2,3 or 4 times the limit and still be functioning with a pedestrian degree of co-ordination and sociability but driving would be an extreme hazard. Without knowing each and every customers details a judgement is impossible.

As Amand says, to many of the what ifs fall in favour of the "bloody idiot". I am not trying to remove all duties of care from establishments but increased responibilities requires increased policing and expenses. Yes The mechanical options I suggested where not wholly serious and like you say, expensive. But so is being sued by drunks and their families.

freediver wrote on Jul 6th, 2009 at 7:09pm:
Quote:
A simpler, less costly to the pub, solution would be for partrons to sign over their keys and they are put into a timelock safe that is not reopened until pub opening hours the next morning.


What if you don't have keys on you? What if you are only stopping in for a drink on the way home from work? What if you are the designated driver? All systems depend on the people operating them, and the one in use is perfectly fine.


I agree, that is why I asked if we now have to have the ridiculous situation of signed customer surveys before someone can order drink. Are you driving? How much do you weigh? Years you've been drinking? etc etc.

Personally, if I was a Barman, I would refuse to take someones keys unless they were going in a timelock safe. Even better a timelock safe that is opened at closing time by the local coppers that breath test each and every person that wants their keys back.
Back to top
 

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 #52 - Jul 7th, 2009 at 3:44pm
 
locutius wrote on Jul 7th, 2009 at 8:43am:
Personally, if I was a Barman, I would refuse to take someones keys unless they were going in a timelock safe. Even better a timelock safe that is opened at closing time by the local coppers that breath test each and every person that wants their keys back.


Great idea, and fine everyone who is over their limit and wants keys back.
(would put some responsibility back on driver)
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #53 - Jul 7th, 2009 at 5:18pm
 
This court decision have opened a road for unscrupulous wives/husbands to earn easy money by nagging their partners out of homes to drink and ride(drive) and die so they can get a compo.
This thread really should be in islam board as an example how not only  muslims make their money from compensation. I'm surprised that abu missed the chance, it would be a killer(no punt intended).

Anyway we are so lucky that we don't have wives/husbands like that or that we are not pub owners. Right?



Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #54 - Jul 7th, 2009 at 8:18pm
 
Quote:
Most especially in social situations, body language speaks louder than words. If I was a staff member in a bar working for a few bucks and somebody asked for their keys back whilst giving me a look that said "if you don't do it, there's gonna be big trouble", it's an easy decision, I'd give the keys back. However, in a courtroom situation, those words would count against the staff member.


You have to deal with that sort of thing all the time working in a bar.

Quote:
Yes that is not an invallid point FD but I also think that bar staff should not be constantly in positions where they risk personal injury because others are afraid of the risk of personal responsibility.


That's what bouncers are for.

Quote:
Serving intoxicated persons is also relies on a judgment that puts the focus of blame and responsibility on another party
.

If you purchase a licence to sell drugs to the public you are taking on that responsibility. There is no way around it.

Quote:
What is intoxicated?? Many drinkers can be well over the legal limit without being legless. they may be 2,3 or 4 times the limit and still be functioning with a pedestrian degree of co-ordination and sociability but driving would be an extreme hazard. Without knowing each and every customers details a judgement is impossible.


I would assume that when people hand over the keys it is for the night, and that the bar would only accept them under those conditions. There is no need to make that judgement.

Quote:
As Amand says, to many of the what ifs fall in favour of the "bloody idiot".


Yes, the cutomer is always right.

Quote:
Personally, if I was a Barman, I would refuse to take someones keys unless they were going in a timelock safe.


Or, just don't tell them where you hide them. It's not like they go in a big bowl on the bar.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
tallowood
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4230
Re: Pub liable for drink-drive death
Reply #55 - Jul 8th, 2009 at 10:25pm
 
The barman should've call to the wife to come and pick her partner up then her scam of getting easy money would not work.

Back to top
 

Reality is a figment of imagination
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 
Send Topic Print