This is at Every Game ,with every Team !

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Monk-Fan

When you go to a game you usually have a ticket stub right? So the venders could put in a system that rations a certain amount of beers to each ticket, each time you buy a beer your ticket will be scanned and it will mark how many beers you have bought on that ticket. I know that there are ways around that but its an idea to help curb excess drinking, realistically it would be impossible to stop people from drinking and driving. It is so sad that the little girl now has to live a life in a wheel chair, very very sad.

wouldn't work.

first: WAY too expensive, and it also slows down sales immensely.
second: he could borrow a stub from his wife/friend/kid/etc or say he lost it.
third: if he really wanted to, he could either sneak beer in or get drunk elsewhere. so it really wouldn't matter who sold him how much beer.

in this case, he was drinking at the tailgate, drinking at the game, and drinking at the strip joints afterwards.

[Monk-Fan]

1st- It wouldnt slow sales immensly, maybe slower but it doesnt take that long to scan a ticket so i dont buy immensley. Dont make the equipment sound like it would cost millions to install and use cause it wouldnt. The Military uses a scanning system overseas all the time and it is easy to use and not really a hassle at all

2nd- Yes he could borrow a ticket from someone else, but like i said it is just an idea.

Relax its just an idea to curb incidents of drunk drivers ruining other peoples lives. I realize that an individual can get drunk somewhere else but like i said it is just an idea

[JoeRedskin]

Sorry, I disagree with the whole concept of "It's ALL the driver's fault". I am not saying it automatically is Aramark's fault BUT they MAY bear some fault in this matter and, if so, should be liable too.

If I, knowing you are drunk and, by definition, know you that your decision making capability is impaired, then I am contributing to your impairment and, in fact, profiting from it when I sell you more alchohol. In addition, regardless of whether or not I know that you will drive later, the inherent dangers in furthering public drunkeness should, at the very least, put me on notice that your impaired condition could be the direct cause of significant harm to others.

The public policy behind dram shop laws is to punish sellers of alchohol in order to protect the general welfare. They were not created in a vacume but were a reaction to the dangers of public drunkeness - and are a tool used by the public to place some responsibility on sellers of alchohol so that they take responsibilty for the inherent dangers of their product.

With that said, the company should only be held liable, in my opinion, if it's hiring procedures and training of the vendor were insufficient or if it encouraged vendors to increase profits without due care towards public safety ("don't worry about selling to drunks, the stadium police will get them if they become a problem"). If the company appropriately trained its people not to sell to drunks, then it should be off the hook. If it gave no instruction, well then it probably (b/c of the liability placed by dram shop laws) is on the hook.

As for the total amount awarded - an otherwise healthy 2yr old now has to spend her life as a quadripalegic. Maintenance Health care alone will be astronomical.

Those who contributed to, and profited from, the fan's drunken behavior should join in the payment of the damages caused by that behavior. Particularly when the public has recognized a specific danger and enacted laws that distribute liability.

[TheInspector]

If all cars had breathalyzers (sp?) then nobody could drive drunk. The way I see it, if people REALLY cared about drunk driving then every car would have one.

I think it would suck to have a breathalyzer on every car, but it would be justified and would certainly reduce the amount of drunk driving accidents.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by TAFKAS

It's a very tragic story. But where does it end really? I mean I've heard of similar cases where the car company is sued, the construction company that built the road is sued, the city is sued, and so on.

While true that we are a very litigious society, the mere fact that lawsuits are filed doesn't mean they are successful.

As to where it stops - USUALLLY, it stops where it should. In some cases, it doesn't and we get the "hot coffee" cases. But, in my experience, those are the exception and not the rule (even in the hot coffee case there was some rationality - http://www.citizen.org/congress/civj...es.cfm?ID=785).

[djnemo65]

I don't think anyone should be outraged at the court's decision. It sounds like their reasons for overturning the initial ruling are sound. The family will now get a new trial in which that evidence in question will not be admitted. If their case is legitimate, that will bear out in court and they'll receive appropriate compensation.

What's the problem here?

[BDBohnzie]

As a functioning adult in this society, you have to know your limitations. This drunk in this trial obviously doesn't know his...

However if Aramark isn't at fault here, why do they continue to limit the amount of beer you can buy at a game? To curb their liability? Now granted, they cannot foot all the responsibility, but they can't get off scott free either. A vendor can visibly see how impaired the buyer is, and recommend he not be able to purchase. He can obviously get it from someone else, but at what point do you become your brother's keeper and make sure he doesn't drink anymore?

Several gray areas here. I'm not surprised at the outcome, as it seems to be purely based on judicial review. and the family still has avenues to go down if they choose.

[RedskinRat]

If Brud and/or Riggo44 and I were to match drink for drink I'd be falling down drunk after about 15 minutes. I'd appear drunk to a beer vendor, they'd be fine.

They both appeared sober to me at the games I met them at, I now know they weren't.

Are you suggesting that beer vendors now become beer police? Makes no sense.

Personal responsibility. End of.

[firstdown]

How do we even know that he was visibly drunk when he purchased the beer. Its not like the vendor can spend all this time investigating if the person they are selling a beer to is drunk or not.Its not like in most bars where you have the same waiter or bartender who knows how much you have been served. Its a shame what happend to this family but the driver is to be blamed for his actions and he went to other bars after the game. They are going after the deep pockets which you can't blame them but I just do not see how the vendor can be held liab. If they are why stop there why not the beer co who advertise how great it is to have some beers with your friends and how they make it look kool to drink. Then how about the advertising co. who make these advertisements for the beer co.. We could go on and on with this but it comes down to the guy who got in his car and turned the key. If he left the bar and had the accident that means that he made it to the bar from the stadium so the bar was the place he left and had the accident. Why not sue the go go dancers which enticed him to stay and drink with there sexy little bodies.

[BDBohnzie]

I'm not saying that they become the beer police, but there comes a point when someone is visably drunk enough to know not to serve them anymore beer. slurring and unsteadiness, you don't need a PhD to figure out what's wrong with them.

now, this guy in the case...he talks of drinking several during a tailgate, and drinking more inside. he may have been able to walk right up to the vendor and buy, all the while being steady. all i ask is at what point do you stop serving? when they pass out reaching for their wallet after ordering another 4 beers? it's a judgment call...

and as far as the family goes, i believe their original suit did call to the strip clubs the guy went to after the fact...

[Master4Caster]

Originally Posted by dmek25

you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl?

No, if it were my little girl, $109 million would not be enough. But I would be biased and that's why injured parties do not sit on juries of their own lawsuits. Sounds like the court is saying that some evidence, that Aramark should have been able to present, was supressed. Had it been presented, maybe the jury would not have awarded $109 million. So the trial is a "do over."

Aramark is entitled to fairness, too. I can't tell from this snippet how much beer Aramark sold the guy; how drunk he may have looked; or when they last sold the beer to him; or the time gap between his last beer at the game and his next hit at the girly club; or how much he had at the girly club; or whether they should have cut him off; or a lot of other details why Aramark was liable for $109 million when the Giants, Meadowlands, NFL and especially the strip clubs settled for $1 million. Something funny there.

Giantone's original point was that rowdy behavior has become a bigger part of football games than it used to be. That's true. And the people most responsible are the ones who get tanked. Adults are supposed to be responsible for their own actions.

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by Monk-Fan

1st- It wouldnt slow sales immensly, maybe slower but it doesnt take that long to scan a ticket so i dont buy immensley. Dont make the equipment sound like it would cost millions to install and use cause it wouldnt. The Military uses a scanning system overseas all the time and it is easy to use and not really a hassle at all

2nd- Yes he could borrow a ticket from someone else, but like i said it is just an idea.

Relax its just an idea to curb incidents of drunk drivers ruining other peoples lives. I realize that an individual can get drunk somewhere else but like i said it is just an idea

if a transaction takes 35 seconds instead of 30 (fumbling for the ticket, pulling it off of your pocket etc) you've lost 10-15% of TOTAL sales. that is immense. If you DON'T think a scanning system would cost millions, you're fooling yourself. Every vendor would need a scanner, you'd need a server w/ database, guys to run it, and batteries for all the scanners and wifi equipment, not to mention training and installation. that's a huge expense for something so easily thwarted.

[Giantone]

I think one (not souly) of the things we're missing here is the drinking before and after the game .Face it even if a stadium didn't sell beer ,people would still drink in the parking lot before and after the game.

[Gmanc711]

Originally Posted by RedskinRat

If Brud and/or Riggo44 and I were to match drink for drink I'd be falling down drunk after about 15 minutes. I'd appear drunk to a beer vendor, they'd be fine.

They both appeared sober to me at the games I met them at, I now know they weren't.

Are you suggesting that beer vendors now become beer police? Makes no sense.

Personal responsibility. End of.

EXACTLY. At my absolute drunkest points, I honestly look completley chill and may appear a little buzzed, but 9/10 times that I get hammered, you really can't tell. You can't blame the beer vendors for this, alot of people could blow a .20 and look like they've had 2 beers. To place blame on the beer vendor I think is ludacris.

[That Guy]

unless you mandate breathalizer tests before sales, its hard to demand that the vendors play beer police without any training or equipment.