Boxlicker101
Licker of Boxes
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2003
- Posts
- 33,665
In some of the nanny states here in America, the establishment and the bartender can be held libel for a) serving a patron who is obviously intoxicated and sometimes b) allowing an intoxicated patron to drive.
In either case the can legally be sued and because of the laws be found guilty an be liable for damages.
Hell, the father could legally sue me, but the case would also be tossed. As part of the liberal nanny laws that seek to make people not responsible for their own actions, some states have laws such as you describe. Probably MO is one of them, which is why I expressed some doubt.
It would depend on the blood alcohol level. If it is .09, Hancock would have been legally drunk, and the bar would not be liable, because he would have been at a lower level when he was served his last drink. He also may have had a bottle in the SUV with him, which could not be blamed on the bar. In addition, they had nothing to do with his speeding and eschewing a seat belt.
It seemed sort of ridiculous to say he was drunk "involuntarily."