> And JAM based on your analogy...
>
> The 1st bartender is off the hook because he will show that he cut
> you off after 2 drinks and cutting one off after only 2 drinks would
> be considered reasonable care (if not overly cautious). Of course, he
> was fired two days later because the boss saw him cutting off people
> too fast and figured he was costing him money.
>
> The 2nd bartender is off the hook too because you made it into his
> bar seemingly sober and only had one drink before leaving.
>
> YOU and the other hand are screwed out of a paint job.
>
> ----------------------
>
> Too many of you dream up situations that are in no way in the spirit
> of the law.
>
> The spirit of the law is that a bar serves you until you are
> obviously drunk and continues to serve you. You are allowed to leave
> and drive. You get into a wreck and kill yourself or someone else.
> Sorry fellas, in that case, if they can provide a cash receipt
> showing excessive drinking or one witness that says you were
> obviously drunk and the bartender knew it, YOU'RE SCREWED and
> rightfully so. I make my living (and have for about 13 years) off
> serving alcohol, but if I cause the death of someone else, I don't
> make excuses.
Whoa one New York minute SwizzleStick! I undertand this is a touchy
situation, but understand before doling out your rebuttals this is a worldly
forum comprised of many outside of the USA with valid points of view. JAM
happens to be in the UK, where these sorts of laws are virtually unheard of.
I still stand true to my opinion on DramShop law being a frivolous lawyer's
concept in some measurable effort for the comfort of that family at loss,
however that does not lump me into your judgmental, maraschino cherry stained
finger pointing of 'short sighted bartenders.' Careful, you are treading on
thin ice.
--------------------------
"Those are my principles, and if you don't like them ...
well, I have others." -Groucho Marx