Publican or Patron. Who's responsible? (2 Viewers)

[Omie Jay]

Im responsible for myself, period.

this.

An individual is responsible for their own actions. Despite the fact that they may be drunk or high or whatever, they are the one who is/was in control of how much alcohol they drank, and they have the ability to restrict themself.
If they dont, and they get smashed off their face, then they are responsible for their drunkenness, for their liver damage, for puking everywhere, and for any accidents they may cause.

edit: but the publican should do something, if you see a drunk dude about to get into a car then you shouldnt really just watch him go ahead and do so, if you can do something then it should be done. But this shouldnt be relied upon, ultimately, imo, its the patron who's responsible for their actions.

 

[tonyharrison]

this.

An individual is responsible for their own actions. Despite the fact that they may be drunk or high or whatever, they are the one who is/was in control of how much alcohol they drank, and they have the ability to restrict themself.
If they dont, and they get smashed off their face, then they are responsible for their drunkenness, for their liver damage, for puking everywhere, and for any accidents they may cause.

Edit: But the publican should do something, if you see a drunk dude about to get into a car then you shouldnt really just watch him go ahead and do so, if you can do something then it should be done. But this shouldnt be relied upon, ultimately, imo, its the patron who's responsible for their actions.

+1

 

[Phoenix Fury]

this.

An individual is responsible for their own actions. Despite the fact that they may be drunk or high or whatever, they are the one who is/was in control of how much alcohol they drank, and they have the ability to restrict themself.
If they dont, and they get smashed off their face, then they are responsible for their drunkenness, for their liver damage, for puking everywhere, and for any accidents they may cause.

Edit: But the publican should do something, if you see a drunk dude about to get into a car then you shouldnt really just watch him go ahead and do so, if you can do something then it should be done. But this shouldnt be relied upon, ultimately, imo, its the patron who's responsible for their actions.

+1

=2

 

[quik.]

Responsibility lies with the individual and no one else

First up, anyone who rides a motorcycle and intends to drink, let alone get drunk, is dumber than my left nut. Shouldn't have rode there in the first place.

Second, why should the owner/staff have to get into a potential confrontation with some drunk knob and put themselves at risk? All because you don't know when you've had too many? Fuck off.

If you can't handle the responsibility, don't get tanked and do dumb shit.

 

[Sprangler]

Second, why should the owner/staff have to get into a potential confrontation with some drunk knob and put themselves at risk? All because you don't know when you've had too many? Fuck off.

That's what I was thinking too. Drunk people don't like when you either tell them to do something, like hand keys over or take a breath test, or tell them to NOT do something, like don't drive.

 

[Serius]

hmm i dont know. It sort of falls with both. Once people get drunk they are kind of like retards, they make poor decisions that arent in their best interests.

For one, publicans should be cutting people off that get rediculously drunk. Its irresponsible to continue serving them alcohol when they are almost passed out in their seat, even if they want it.

If someone hands in their keys because they know they will be drinking and when they drink they sometimes try and drive home, they are being responsible. Its still not all on the publican, but anyone would know that a man who just had 8 beers and then asks for his keys is about to drive home drunk and you are enabling that behaviour by handing it over. If someone who is suicidal asks me for a gun, its not like i will then lend them mine, no questions asked[not the greatest metaphor, but you get the idea]

Indeed. Then the publican is violating the person's property rights.

IF it had happened like that. IF some drunk retard was waving his keys around bragging about how he was about to drive off drunk or something really obvious like that, i would say the publican has a responsibility to talk to him, try and get the keys off him and as a last resort, call the police. You cant really pin them down and steal their keys, but you probably can detain them [something about releasing too many drunk idiots on the sidewalk at once? idk i remember some bouncers saying they have a right to detain people for a short amount of time if they are going to be a problem once they get outside] you can convince them to hand them over using trickery, make direct threats about calling the cops if he leaves with them in hand, heaps of stuff.

Still, the retard chose to ask for his keys back and chose to drive home, and believe it or not, we are responsible for our actions, even when drunk. So he is at fault and the publican deserves a fine or a slap on the wrist or something thats not too severe but still a good warning.

 

[quik.]

For one, publicans should be cutting people off that get rediculously drunk. Its irresponsible to continue serving them alcohol when they are almost passed out in their seat, even if they want it.

This is true, part of the RSA and all that. However, not all people show visible signs at the same point, and most importantly not all people buy their own drinks.

If someone hands in their keys because they know they will be drinking and when they drink they sometimes try and drive home, they are being responsible.

No, they are not being responsible. If they know they are going to be drinking heavily, to the point where they 'plan ahead' and give their keys to someone, they should have caught a taxi, hopped on the bus whatever.

IF it had happened like that. IF some drunk retard was waving his keys around bragging about how he was about to drive off drunk or something really obvious like that, i would say the publican has a responsibility

Again, why should they have to put themselves at risk to protect someone from themselves?

So he is at fault and the publican deserves a fine or a slap on the wrist or something thats not too severe but still a good warning.

Agree with the first couple or words, disagree with the rest.

 

[Serius]

why should they have to put themselves at risk to protect someone from themselves?

if a suicidal person asks me for a rope to hang themselves with, why shouldnt i give it to them? they might get angry if i dont, and the dozens of bouncers wont be able to protect me from one drunk guy! If they ask me for the rope, hell i wont even protest, i wont even call the police, i will just hand it straight to them and say " drive safe mate" and wipe my hands clean of them. After all, its just a human life, who gives a shit. I wont even call the cops or anything, even though they are looking to break the law.

 

[quik.]

Dozens of bouncers, lol

I doubt bar staff or whatever limited bouncers/security get paid enough to take knocks trying to stop someone driving their own car. Even if they were, are they going to follow every tipsy person that leaves to their car?

The guy handed his keys in ahead of time. He KNEW he was going to get munted, yet still decided to ride there. His decision.

How hard is it to take a taxi? Some stranger is not your personal babysitter.

Establishment provides alcohol, beyond their responsibility to not serve to intoxicated persons/minors it is all on you

Calling the police is fine but, if they even decide to come out, the person in question will likely already be gone

 

[Serius]

Dozens of bouncers, lol

My local watering hole has about 8-12 out the front, then 4-6 in each area depending on how busy it is. Busy night, there might be about 30 or more security around.

I doubt bar staff or whatever limited bouncers/security get paid enough to take knocks trying to stop someone driving their own car. Even if they were, are they going to follow every tipsy person that leaves to their car?

They dont really have to wrestle they keys off him. The bar already had his keys "hey can i have my keys back?" -no. Whats he going to do? if he tries to fight about it security can throw him out like any other drunk and disorderly patron. At the very least, if they are going to hand car keys to a drunk idiot, they could call the cops. It probably wont stop them, but atleast they have done something. Again, at my local watering hole, police take 2-5mins to get there [ and 5 minutes is SLOOOW, people would be standing around wondering why they arent there yet] delay him for a few minutes, offer him a free beer lol, police show up, as he leaves, point him out.

The guy handed his keys in ahead of time. He KNEW he was going to get munted, yet still decided to ride there. His decision.

How hard is it to take a taxi? Some stranger is not your personal babysitter.

Establishment provides alcohol, beyond their responsibility to not serve to intoxicated persons/minors it is all on you

Calling the police is fine but, if they even decide to come out, the person in question will likely already be gone

Yeah, he knew he was going to drink, and they knew it as well, so he handed his keys in. They then knew he was drunk and was going to drive home drunk, but they gave the keys back anyway. Handed him the noose. Bad form imo...maybe not super illegal and i dont think the pub should face criminal charges or anything, but they were definetely negligent. You could also look more closely at their "key holding" service. If they are offering that as a safety alternative so that you can feel secure getting intoxicated and knowing you wont try and foolishly drive home, then them handing keys back to drunk people is immoral and probably illegal too.

 

[quik.]

From this very case file/notes/whatever they are called

"Refusal to hand over the motorcycle. As to the fourth alleged breach of duty – that the Licensee could simply have refused to hand over the motorcycle – counsel for the Board and Mrs Scott correctly declined to defend what Tennent J said. If the Licensee had done that, he would have been committing an illegal act."

Sure, attempt to keep them talking or whatever so the cops can get there.

But they don't have any responsibility for the drunkards welfare should they go off and do some stupid shit.

As far as their key holding service goes, the agreement was to take his keys and call his wife when he left. When he wanted to leave they offered to call his wife and he refused and asked for his keys.

Maybe the 'service' needs review, maybe not, but I would rather people plan ahead and take some responsibility for their actions