I've been on record here several times (wait, this is all being recorded right?) of despising the "sue culture" that exists in this country. I've also been on record of stating my belief that judges are some of the dumbest, ridiculous, most short-sighted elected/appointed people we have in government, from local to federal.
Things have been allowed to deteriorate so badly in today's America, that everyone from policy makers to businesses to sports teams walk on egg shells and overly PC everything because they are terrified of getting sued. This thread dovetails with the "legalize pot" thread in that dumbass simpletons are being rewarded for their sheer stupidity because judges 1) allow such civil cases to even exist in the first place, and 2) side with the person who's suing, even when it's very obvious that the person is just a dumbass and is seeking financial reward because of a technicality.
I want to give an example of this sue culture that I feel particularly strongly about: those who sue bars that served someone who later drove drunk and injured/killed himself or others. There are examples of this happening all the time; just Google it. I HATE this with a passion. Where the hell did personal accountability go? Seriously, where did it go? What is the purpose of a bar? To serve alcoholic drinks. Obviously everyone who leaves a bar is going to be buzzed.
It's like the bar in Chapel Hill that was sued (I think this was He's Not Here, but I may be getting my stories mixed up) because someone got too drunk there, left, drove his car (smart), hopped a curb and struck and killed a woman. How is it the bar's fault that he left and decided to drive?! Why is the bar responsible? Why is the person not responsible? Well I know the obvious answer to that.....the bar has more money to pay out in a civil suit than the guy probably does. That just don't sit right with me.
I look forward to some of y'all arguing with me on this one because no one has ever convinced me that a bar should be open to a civil suit due to a driving incident that occurs off their property. Do I think bars should look to cut people off who they deem to be too drunk? Yes, absolutely. Do you know what the problem is with that? It's very subjective because some people "show" their level of drunkenness much more than others. I have friends (and sometimes myself, admittedly) who can be on the verge of blackout drunk, and can still have a very, very functional conversation and will still get served because they don't look or act drunk. I also have other friends who start slurring after like two drinks but aren't even over the legal limit. So how the hell is the bar supposed to know the difference? They're not going to catch 100% of people before they're over-served.
My logic is this. Look at all the steps you have to take to kill someone by drunk driving from the point of you leaving to go to a bar:
- decide to drive yourself there (and you know when you're going out for a "tipsy" drunk or a "drunk" drunk)
- order drink after drink, even though you know in the back of your mind, you're starting to get too drunk to drive safely
- decide to drive yourself home (hello?!? Walk, uber, taxi, call a friend, bum a ride, etc)
- start driving
- fail at driving because you're too drunk and crash into someone
That's a lot of failed personal responsibility on the account of the individual, yet the bar gets sued? All they did was serve drinks which is their primary, secondary, and tertiary business model. Plus, most bars have signs in bathrooms that advertise taxi services and DUI attorneys, which is supposed to be a big "HELLO STUPID" warning.
Why not sue the liquor distillers while we're at it? And let's sue the car company since it didn't have an anti-start-when-you're-drunk device in it! I hate the sue culture. Personal accountability is dead.
Things have been allowed to deteriorate so badly in today's America, that everyone from policy makers to businesses to sports teams walk on egg shells and overly PC everything because they are terrified of getting sued. This thread dovetails with the "legalize pot" thread in that dumbass simpletons are being rewarded for their sheer stupidity because judges 1) allow such civil cases to even exist in the first place, and 2) side with the person who's suing, even when it's very obvious that the person is just a dumbass and is seeking financial reward because of a technicality.
I want to give an example of this sue culture that I feel particularly strongly about: those who sue bars that served someone who later drove drunk and injured/killed himself or others. There are examples of this happening all the time; just Google it. I HATE this with a passion. Where the hell did personal accountability go? Seriously, where did it go? What is the purpose of a bar? To serve alcoholic drinks. Obviously everyone who leaves a bar is going to be buzzed.
It's like the bar in Chapel Hill that was sued (I think this was He's Not Here, but I may be getting my stories mixed up) because someone got too drunk there, left, drove his car (smart), hopped a curb and struck and killed a woman. How is it the bar's fault that he left and decided to drive?! Why is the bar responsible? Why is the person not responsible? Well I know the obvious answer to that.....the bar has more money to pay out in a civil suit than the guy probably does. That just don't sit right with me.
I look forward to some of y'all arguing with me on this one because no one has ever convinced me that a bar should be open to a civil suit due to a driving incident that occurs off their property. Do I think bars should look to cut people off who they deem to be too drunk? Yes, absolutely. Do you know what the problem is with that? It's very subjective because some people "show" their level of drunkenness much more than others. I have friends (and sometimes myself, admittedly) who can be on the verge of blackout drunk, and can still have a very, very functional conversation and will still get served because they don't look or act drunk. I also have other friends who start slurring after like two drinks but aren't even over the legal limit. So how the hell is the bar supposed to know the difference? They're not going to catch 100% of people before they're over-served.
My logic is this. Look at all the steps you have to take to kill someone by drunk driving from the point of you leaving to go to a bar:
- decide to drive yourself there (and you know when you're going out for a "tipsy" drunk or a "drunk" drunk)
- order drink after drink, even though you know in the back of your mind, you're starting to get too drunk to drive safely
- decide to drive yourself home (hello?!? Walk, uber, taxi, call a friend, bum a ride, etc)
- start driving
- fail at driving because you're too drunk and crash into someone
That's a lot of failed personal responsibility on the account of the individual, yet the bar gets sued? All they did was serve drinks which is their primary, secondary, and tertiary business model. Plus, most bars have signs in bathrooms that advertise taxi services and DUI attorneys, which is supposed to be a big "HELLO STUPID" warning.
Why not sue the liquor distillers while we're at it? And let's sue the car company since it didn't have an anti-start-when-you're-drunk device in it! I hate the sue culture. Personal accountability is dead.
