Court considers whether airline can be sued as in-flight bar

[Dedman]

This is a register to read site, so I will quote the entire article. I have long held that it is ridiculous for bars to be held responsible for any damages caused by a drunk patron as if that patron had no control over his own actions. What are your thoughts?

Court considers whether Delta can be sued as in-flight bar

Associated Press
Published on: 04/18/05

In Georgia, a bartender can be sued for serving alcohol to a noticeably drunk customer. The state's Supreme Court is considering whether the same rules apply to airlines â?? and if flight attendants must start monitoring plastered passengers.

The court's decision in the lawsuit against Atlanta-based Delta Air Lines could shape the airline industry.

"It's one thing to say to Hooters or Tom's bar that they have to watch how much alcohol they serve. ... It's changing the nature of how airlines do business to say that now they have to keep their eyes on their customers," said Frank Vandall, a professor at the Emory School of Law. "That hasn't been done. It is a brand new concept."

The case before Georgia's highest court stems from a traffic accident involving a man who allegedly became intoxicated while on a Delta flight from Milwaukee to Atlanta.

William Serio swerved across the center line of a road and struck another vehicle head-on, seriously injuring the driver of that vehicle, Jack Townsend, who is suing Delta for damages.

Serio had between six and eight glasses of red wine during his return flight to Atlanta, according to Townsend's attorney, and did not drink before or after the flight.

Townsend, 28, is now unable to care for himself and lives with his parents, said his lawyer, Irwin Stolz. He suffered multiple orthopedic injuries, including severely broken arms, legs and ribs, Stolz said. He has limited short-term memory, cannot drive and walks with a limp.

"There are very limited things he can do," Stolz said.

A Fulton County Superior Court judge threw out Townsend's lawsuit, saying that since the alcohol that Serio consumed was not served in Georgia, the law doesn't apply. But the state appeals court reversed that decision, allowing the case to move forward.

Delta appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court and is not commenting on the case, spokeswoman Benet Wilson said Friday.

"They're saying the law doesn't apply to us because we're up in the sky, that whatever occurs on that airplane we're not responsible for it. That's simply not true," Stolz said.

Stolz argues that a federal airline regulation already prohibits serving alcohol to passengers who appear to be intoxicated. However, he said, that regulation only allows passengers or airline employees to sue over any problems, so he has been pursuing the matter in state court.

If Delta loses, the case will go to a jury. Stolz declined to say how much Townsend is seeking in damages.

Because Delta is an airline, not a bar, its primary function is to transport passengers, not entertain, Vandall said. On the other hand, he said, the airline does serve a lot of alcohol each day to passengers.

"It serves as much as a major hotel chain," Vandall said. "There's every reason to treat them as a bar and apply the same standards."

[Top Gun]

I'll agree with you. Anyone old enough to drink is old enough to be responsible for their own actions. If you get plastered and do something stupid/illegal, it's your own damn fault for getting plastered in the first place. Bartenders aren't paid to be mommy and daddy.

[Testiculese]

Customarily pathetic.

[Will Robinson]

..I have long held that it is ridiculous for bars to be held responsible for any damages caused by a drunk patron as if that patron had no control over his own actions. What are your thoughts?

I disagree, *if* the person is in a noticeable drunken state, then it would be irresposible to help them keep drinking.
I was a bartender and more than once offered to call sober ride for drunk customers and if they refused I told them I would call the police instead with a discription of their vehicle.
It worked a few times, got called a bunch of unpleasant things a few times and once had a drunk give me 'his keys' to prove he wasn't driving so I'd fix him another drink only to find out later he gave me some other customers keys and then he drove his car home

Drunks often do lose control in the sense they chose to do what any rational sober person would consider dangerous to society. Feeding them alcohol is like inciting them to be dangerous.

[Dedman]

Drunks often do lose control in the sense they chose to do what any rational sober person would consider dangerous to society. Feeding them alcohol is like inciting them to be dangerous.

I see where you are coming from Will, but I disagree. I added a little emphasis to your quote to illustrate my point. The bartender does not make the patron get drunk. It's the patrons CHOICE to abuse the alcohol that get him into trouble.

I believe it is time for some personal responsibility in this country.

[snoopy]

I think the legal responsibility lies on the person drinking, but at the same time I think the bar tender has the ethical responsibility to suggest that someone stop when they are abusing alcohol. I might not appreciate it at the time, but after that fact I think I'd really appreciate it if a bar tender suggested that I stop drinking when it was time to do so for my own good. Basically, legall I agree with Dedman, but ethically I agree with Will.

[Will Robinson]

Drunks often do lose control in the sense they chose to do what any rational sober person would consider dangerous to society. Feeding them alcohol is like inciting them to be dangerous.

I see where you are coming from Will, but I disagree. I added a little emphasis to your quote to illustrate my point. The bartender does not make the patron get drunk. It's the patrons CHOICE to abuse the alcohol that get him into trouble.

I believe it is time for some personal responsibility in this country.

I chose that word on purpose

I understand he plays some part in turning himself into a danger to the rest of the world *but* if you know alcohol can, and most likely will to some degree, turn a rational man into a danger...

and, you know a persons ability to reason is hindered by alcohol...

and you recognize he is already drunk...

Then to continue to serve him alcohol is to contribute to, and most likely even increase the danger he poses to the rest of the world.

The distinction for me is when you can tell the person is becoming drunk, at that time, not before, you start to share some responsibility.

If Domino's Pizza also delivered rifle ammunition they wouldn't be resposible for their customers who went out and shot someone with it.
If, however, the Domino's Pizza guy gets a call from the sniper in the tower in Austin Texas...or the two kids in trench coats in the school in Columbine and they request more ammo....
well you get the idea

[TheCops]

Itâ??s in the best interest of the people serving alcohol to take care of their customers, even if that means getting stiffed on a tip by a belligerent prick. The reasons are bountiful; like a dead customer can no longer order and your reputation will be ruined.

That said, Iâ??m really sick of people not owning up to their poor behavior. I have been cut off 1 time in my entire life and I clearly deserved it. I went back the next day, found the sweet waitress who cut me off, thanked her, and gave her 20 dollars for having to deal with my dumbass.

Alcohol can make a rational human being really really ugly.

[Lothar]

I thought alcohol made ugly people really attractive...

[Iceman]

Holding bar owners responsible for the actions of their patrons is akin to holding gun makers responsible for the actions of theirs.

Both ... really stoopid ideas.

[Dedman]

I thought alcohol made ugly people really attractive...

It does that too. I once had a 4 month relationship becuase of lonliness and alcohol. Damn, it wasn't pretty.

Holding bar owners responsible for the actions of their patrons is akin to holding gun makers responsible for the actions of theirs.

Both ... really stoopid ideas.

That is exactly my take on it.

[woodchip]

Holding bar owners responsible for the actions of their patrons is akin to holding gun makers responsible for the actions of theirs.

Both ... really stoopid ideas.

Not true. Gun makers are more akin to car manufacturers. If a drunk kills someone while driving, the auto maker is not sued as there is nothing wrong with the car...only the driver. The bar tender, on the other hand, is directly supplying a substance to the driver that alters his ability to handle the car.
Perhaps one day a person going into a bar to drink will have to surrender his keys at the door and when he is ready to go, will have to take a sobriety test before getting the keys back. Extreme? So is the 20 or so thousand people who die because of a drunk driver.

[DCrazy]

Well, the difference between guns and cars is that the intended purpose of a gun is to cause damage. The intended purpose of a car is to transport people and things. Quite different, though both require training in responsible usage and both can be quite deadly.

And plenty of people get drunk on their own or at a party, not necessarily at a bar. I've nearly had to step in as a designated driver after hanging out with my friends, and I only have a learner's permit (and I'm only 17...). What's next, blaming the grocery store that sold them the 12-pack they polished off in one night?

[MD-2389]

What's next, blaming the grocery store that sold them the 12-pack they polished off in one night?

I wouldn't be suprised. People love to pass the blame around in order to get out of trouble. Its the exact same situation with "violent video games".

[Ferno]

Man this looks like the work of some dummy who thinks he can make a quick buck.

[DCrazy]

Man this looks like the work of some dummy lawyer who thinks he can make a quick buck.

[Dedman]

Don't hate the player hate the game.