Oh, this is not going to go over well with the left/Democrats/media/socialists/etc.

It seems an appeals court judge actually ruled that people are responsible for their own actions. From the decision:

In that it appears to the Court in this case that there is no legal duty by a commercial provider of alcohol in North Carolina after service of the final drink by the defendant, the plaintiffsÂ’ claims for relief do not establish recognized legal claims.

They have worked hard to sue and shut down bars, bartenders, and anyone who sells the evil alcohol. They have been successful in making it the bartender's fault that some moron drove home drunk. But this case turns that idea completely on its head and back to common sense -- YOU are responsible for your actions.

This restores contract law. The contract is -- person A gives bartender $5 for a beer. The bartender meets his portion of the contract, as does person A. That's all. The contract is now over. That's how contract law works -- ANYTHING that happens with person A after that has nothing to do with the bartender.

But don't worry -- the judges did leave a hole for the Democrat-led Legislature to drive a truck through:

had the General Assembly intended to prohibit by statute consumption of alcoholic beverages by intoxicated persons on the premises of an ABC licensee or permittee (and by implication thereby to impose a legal duty of care), it easily could and would have done so.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:09 PM | Comments (6) | Add Comment
Post contains 323 words, total size 2 kb.

1 $5.00 for a beer? I wouldn't be drinking enough to be the moron driving drunk, that's for sure!

Posted by: Oddybobo at March 09, 2006 02:37 PM (6Gm0j)

2 You don't pay $5? You don't get out much, do you?

Posted by: Ogre at March 09, 2006 02:42 PM (/k+l4)

3 Sigh... Nothing good seems to last very long. ;-)

Posted by: vw bug at March 09, 2006 05:11 PM (qxjXY)

4 Hopefully this will be a turn-around case for all the dumb suing-spree cases. I.e. the moron who is suing the company that manufactored his iPod because HE chose to play it too loudly and hurt his ears. Besides, the iPod doesn't directly make the noise, you should be suing the headphone company. haha If that dude wins his case against iPod makers, then I'm going to wear my Reeboks on the wrong foot, then sue Reebok when my feet become disfigured for not properly labeling which shoe was for which foot. haha But seriously, if this MADD case is ever overturned or ruled differently, then those fat people suing McDonalds for weight gain should have won. If you can blame a bartender or bar for the effect their product has on you, then you should be able to blame a clerk or restaruant for the effect their product has on. Fair is fair, right? haha

Posted by: The Realest White Boy at March 09, 2006 05:17 PM (vFzZ+)

5 Sorry, VW. And White Boy -- this is just a glimmer of hope, just a tiny start of a possibility. People are not going to stop sueing over the things you listed until there is real, actual, legal reform -- like making the loser pay for bringing the lawsuit in the first place.

Posted by: Ogre at March 09, 2006 05:26 PM (/k+l4)

6 i bet it is so! talk politics at www.getmad.ca

Posted by: kmj at March 13, 2006 07:13 PM (+W7mb)

Hide Comments | Add Comment