0
Richards

Say it isn't so...common sense

Recommended Posts

Quote

The Supreme Court of Canada has spoken wisely in ruling that hosts of private house parties should not be held liable for the actions of their drunken guests once they leave the premises.

In a perfect world, of course, there would have been no need for this court decision. In a perfect world no one would ever get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle after consuming large quantities of alcohol.

We'd listen to the ads that tell us to plan our evenings by arranging for a designated driver or by calling a cab or by simply staying put after boozing it up.

But we don't. We live in a world where we sniff at the law if we think we can get away with it. In the early hours of Jan. 1, 1999 it was that kind of flaunting of the rules that cost a young man his life and horribly injured a young woman.

There are no winners in the case decided yesterday by Canada's highest court. Zoe Childs lost her health, her mobility, her way of living. Her boyfriend lost his life. Their families and friends have suffered immeasurably. The hosts of the party will forever wish they had done things differently.


And as difficult as it is is to work up compassion for the drunk driver -- the man who set the terrible events in motion -- he is serving out the jail sentence he deserves and will spend his life with the knowledge of the horrible wrong he has done.

But to have held others responsible for the actions of the man who drove drunk would have undone none of the damage. It would have simply shifted some of the blame to party hosts who had no way of controlling the actions of their guests.

The man who drove drunk that fateful night knew he was breaking the law. But he chose to ignore the fact and take his chances.

For that he -- and he alone -- is held accountable. In our far from perfect world, that's the way it should be.



Oh my god! Is our coddled nanny state suggesting that ...god forbid....people are responsible for their own actions? I almost don't beleive it.

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was waiting for them to hold the home owner responsible for the behaviour of his drunk guest so we could find out who the homeowner would blame for his own state of intoxication. After all he'd be drinking at his own party. :S
"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I was waiting for them to hold the home owner responsible for the behaviour of his drunk guest so we could find out who the homeowner would blame for his own state of intoxication. After all he'd be drinking at his own party. :S



It's the fault of the company that makes bottle openers. If it weren't for bottle openners there would be no impaired driving. Those evil bottle openner firms are profiting on our childrens deaths and should pay through the nose. Oh and the people who make glasses that people drink their beverages out of are responsible.

Cheers,

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I was waiting for them to hold the home owner responsible for the behaviour of his drunk guest so we could find out who the homeowner would blame for his own state of intoxication. After all he'd be drinking at his own party. :S


Probably the liquor manufacturer. It worked for tobacco :S

Vale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Probably the liquor manufacturer. It worked for tobacco



But didn't tobacco have the luxury of positive promotion for dozens of years before suddenly 'discovering' that smoking was unhealthy? Numerous ad campaigns portrayed smoking as a hip, healthy thing, with doctors and movie stars promoting its use. Who paid for the ad campaigns to mold public opinion favorably towards smoking? Shouldn't be a surprise it is the same corporations who paid for massive lobbies for favorable legislation in Washington for numerous years.

Hell, I remember being at the Charlotte racetrack at 14 years old and repeatedly going back to the Winston and Marlboro sales reps. They were giving free ciggs to ANYone who asked for them. This was well after the 'discovery' of it being bad and pulling all TV advertising.

So don't tell me that tobacco companies weren't responsibile for thier actions in peddling their toxins to children, with Wahsington turning a blind eye. The tobacco industry is like any other in that they need a continual stream of new customers as the old ones die off or come to their senses. And they will to anything to preserve their business, as any other greed/profit driven entity would do.

I am certainly not saying that a gun mfg should be held liable for how someone uses their product, but if an ad campaign existed for the UZI, promoting it use as a tool of looking cool by shooting off your toes with it, that certainly would change my opinion. Or if a liquor company touted itself as a alcohol that was safe for driving, then that might be a problem.

Tobacco companies got off very light considering the countless billions in profits they made before public opinion (common sense) turned on them and stopped believing their lies, demanding they stop most advertising. Strange though how tobacco's influence is still very strong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Oh my god! Is our coddled nanny state suggesting that ...god forbid....people are responsible for their own actions? I almost don't beleive it.



Which is why the Supreme Court left the door open.

If you as the party host continue to serve a guest, knowing he/she is intoxicated and knowing he/she has to drive you can still be held liable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In law we call a law that imposes liability on a person who serves alcohol or drugs to a person who causes harm while intoxicated a "Dram Shop Act."

They've got a colorful history dating back 150-200 years. Around 40 states have these laws. In California it is limited to serving alcohol to an "obviously intoxiacted" person. While they are designed to put the damage to society n the shoulders of those who profit fro the sale of alcohol, it can often give liability to a private party who serves it.

There are solid policy reasons for these acts. There are also solid policy reasons for their abolishment.


My wife is hotter than your wife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
re. tobacco, it seems to me that most people knew it was unhealthy long before the surgeon general's report in the '50s or whatever.

1) it is intuitively obvious that smoking is bad for you. the body sends all kinds of signals. Not being able to run up a flight of stairs without wheezing, and a hacking cough 20 minutes every morning should give anyone a clue.

2) as early as the 1920's science had already established the CORRELATION between smoking & lung cancer. even though causality wasn't officially proven 'til the '50s, it should have been considered likely by most people.

3) as early as World War I cigarettes were commonly referred to as "coffin nails." So it seems to me that the common person knew that cigs were bad for your health.

anyone who thinks smoking is harmless is willingly in denial.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

If you as the party host continue to serve a guest, knowing he/she is intoxicated and knowing he/she has to drive you can still be held liable.



That is very open to subjectivity. Usually people bring their own liquor, or if booze is provided it is self serve. It is very hard for a host to monitor, and often you don't know who drove and who took a cab. It really should be left solely on the individual whether or not he/she drives impaired.

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

There are solid policy reasons for these acts. There are also solid policy reasons for their abolishment.



So it is more of a rey issue than a black and white issue. If you had to take one position or another what would your default position be?

Richards
My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

re. tobacco, it seems to me that most people knew it was unhealthy long before the surgeon general's report in the '50s or whatever.

anyone who thinks smoking is harmless is willingly in denial.



even more ridiculous the (former) claim of the tobacco industry
that cigarettes are not addictive. About 20 years when I quit I
could have served as a crown witness for the anti-tobacco
attonrneys:
After throwing out all smoking utensils I couldn't help myself
but had to roll up tea leaves in newspapers and lit them in my
toaster. (It was awful - don't try it). I also don't conider my self as
particularly uninhibite by any measure d, however, when the
urge became too strong I simply walked into the nearest restaurant,
approached a patron who was having his lunch in the smoking
section and asked him for a cigarette and a light.

T
*******************************************************************
Fear causes hesitation, and hesitation will cause your worst fears to come true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0