Man dies after drinking contest - Publican is held responsible

connundrum

Hey, can't actually find a link for this but heard the story on the radio.

Basically a man (42, father of 4 kids) went into a pub and had a drinking competition with 2 of his mates. In the space of 90 minutes he had consumed 18 brandys. Then he died (don't know if he died in the pub or at home).

The family took the publican to court, blaming him for serving the man. The publican is reported to have settled out of court for €100,000.

I don't really know who is to blame, as the publican shouldn't (by law) serve anyone who is intoxicated. But the man is 42 ffs, he should have known better! Often I have had far too much of a night out, and have got sick etc - but it was my fault. It was me who decided to over indulge.

To me this is like a fat person sueing McDonalds. But by law the man shouldn't have been served.

Tricky one.

petes

Did this happen a year or two ago?

connundrum

petes wrote:

Did this happen a year or two ago?

It must have, but I think the publican only settled yesterday - otherwise the news reports are really really bad.

petes

I can kind of remember something about this at the time it happened. Tbh both were to blame.

doubledown

I don't think it's a tricky one at all, to be honest.

Anyone who drinks 18 brandys in 90 minutes is an idiot.

HelterSkelter

connundrum wrote:

To me this is like a fat person sueing McDonalds. But by law the man shouldn't have been served.

Tricky one.

I don't think it is the same thing. There is no law stopping McDonalds from serving fat people. A publican however is required by law not serve anyone who is drunk.

In this case though I think it was also the man's fault and the family have no right to sue the publican. I do think that the publican should be charged under the relevant law and be punished that way.

gucci

doubledown wrote:

anyone who drinks 18 brandys in 90 minutes is an idiot.

or a really big tough man as he was trying to prove...

User45701

emm how many times have all of you
J walked?
Peed in the street
Been served drunk
Had music above the legal noise limit
parked on a double yellow line

everyone breaks those minor laws its stupid that you can not be served when drunk, the only reason that have that law is its a excuse not to serve rowdy people

Beetlebum

They're both grown men and both should have known better. Some people can disguise being drunk very well but seeing as the barman had served him that amount of Brandy in such a short space of time he'd clearly know the man is fooked. I'm sure he was happy to keep serving him as it's money in his back pocket. Still, that will be on his conscience forever more. Terrible...

Two of my mates had a burger eating contest once. They went into our local take-away and ordered 19 burgers each, the deal was that the loser had to pay. They both ended up eating an equal amount of burgers (14 as far as I remember), both got sick, and both had to pay...idiots!!

Deediddums

Did he win?

connundrum

Deediddums wrote:

Did he win?

:rolleyes:

Hail 2 Da Chimp

He had better have won...

But I do agree the barkeep should be held somewhat responsible for serving that amount of drink to a patrion in that amount of time, im sure in my local if I tried that i'd be turfed out.

But on the other hand the barkeep didnt exactly force him to drink it.

Its a bit like handing someone a loaded gun and "telling them do what ever you want with it"...

ferdi

Deediddums wrote:

Did he win?

you'd want to have seen the other guy!

Hail 2 Da Chimp

Actually I would like to know what happened the other guys, were they hospitalised or anything?

18 Brandys is a LOT to drink in 90 minutes!

Heisenberg.

This post has been deleted.

Splinter

ya saying that cause it probably wasnt watered down so mustnt have been in Dublin

garthv

1 shot of brandy = 35.5 cl

18 x 35.5 = 639 cl

Thats pretty much a whole bottle, considering the average bottle is 750 cl.
Thats a whole lotta hooch!

Rb

They were having a drinking contest so as far as I'm concerned he is responsible. It may have been a bit irresponsible for the bar to keep serving him so much in such a short amount of time, but if they were so intent on the contest then they'd have just as easily went to an off-licence and held it at home (providing they were refused service in the bar). Who'd of been responsible then? The off-licence for giving him the drink? I don't think so..

\m/_(>_<)_\m/

connundrum wrote:

To me this is like a fat person sueing McDonalds. But by law the man shouldn't have been served.

Tricky one.

well drug dealers are held responsible for selling drugs to people, if you buy medicine from a pharmacy and they get the dosage wrong its the pharmacy is held responsible.

so ya the publican should be held responsible..

Gurgle

doubledown wrote:

Anyone who drinks 18 brandys in 90 minutes is an idiot.

But if he wasn't an idiot to start with, the first 5 brandys would make him one as they would shut down the part of the brain responsible for telling him when to stop.

Hence the law.

Barman can't drink at work and is responsible for deciding when someone has had too much.

Froot

User45701 wrote:

the only reason that have that law is its a excuse not to serve rowdy people

WTF are you talking about?

Its clearly there to avoid pointless sh!tty situations, such as the family of the aforementioned idiot suing and end up taking €100k off you...

Thats just an idea though :rolleyes:

seamus

Gurgle wrote:

But if he wasn't an idiot to start with, the first 5 brandys would make him one as they would shut down the part of the brain responsible for telling him when to stop.

Hence the law.

Barman can't drink at work and is responsible for deciding when someone has had too much.

Well, does anyone have a link to any more information? For example, did the man go up to the bar for each brandy, or did he order ten at a time? Or perhaps they ordered a bottle each and took shot glasses down?

At the speed he was drinking, he could easily have had up to 10 shots before any massively decreased motor skills were observed. It's also possible that he/they were served by multiple bar people who weren't aware, or were otherwise not keeping track of the amount the men were drinking.

If they were drinking the shots in doubles, triple or glasses, it also increases the chance that their intoxication simply wasn't spotted in time.

While I'm not trying to absolve the publican from blame, I don't believe that even the most cold-hearted of publican would continue to serve alcohol to someone who would be incapable of holding themselves up (which the man would have been, well before the 18th shot).

There is also the possibility that while the man was fairly legless, he was also quite lucid, and the alcohol simply exaggerated a preexisting condition - high blood pressure, diabetes, etc - and killed him.

TerrorFirmer

I remember hearing about this awhile back alright, at the time my father told me about a guy he'd known years ago who did something similar - he tried to drink an entire bottle of whiskey for a bet, and promptly dropped dead a very short while later.

Poor guys family though, what an awful way to go, due to your own stupidity. Its hard to say the publican is to blame though at the same time without further info, as above.

petes

I can remember hearing about it but I can't find any links or info about it.This seems to be the biggest hit on google:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/11/20/1069027201467.html

Sleepy

The publican should be prosecuted for serving alcohol to an intoxicated person and fined for that offence by the state.

The family, however, have no right to compensation for the idiocy of their dead father/husband. (unless he had life insurance that didn't have a suicide clause).

seamus

Sleepy wrote:

The publican should be prosecuted for serving alcohol to an intoxicated person and fined for that offence by the state.

Well, based on what we have in this thread, there is no evidence to suggest that this is the case. After all, if an off-licence serves you two bottles of vodka and you drink them and promptly drop dead, they haven't done anything wrong, right?

That said, if it is a case that the publican supplied them with an initially huge volume of alcohol for consumption on the premises - say a tray of brandy shots or two bottles of brandy - then it certainly is a case of extreme negligence. If his/her solicitor advised them to settle out of court, then there was probably a strong case against them.

KamiKazi

GaRtH_V wrote:

1 shot of brandy = 35.5 cl

35.5 ml......

garthv

KamiKazi wrote:

35.5 ml......

Wow...
People on these boards really have too much time on their hands.

Giblet

You're the one who tried to be the smart pants.

garthv

Giblet wrote:

You're the one who tried to be the smart pants.

Smart pants?
I worked in a bar for years...its common knowledge....
Just putting it in perspective is all

Alfasudcrazy

Publicans are a greedy and unscrupulous lot. They don't care about anything other than their profits. I know as I work 'in the field' so to speak.

Anything goes, underage drinking, serving alcoholics knowing their families are suffering at home, leave people drive home drunk, stuff as many in as possible - most don't even know what their patron limit is under the fire regulations. They generally are no better than drug pushers - I have no respect for them whatever.

muffler

GaRtH_V wrote:

I worked in a bar for years...its common knowledge....l

Didn't help you notice the difference between ml's and cl's did it

This reminds me of someone I knew in america.. he was in a pub and got very drunk before getting into his car and getting into a very bad crash. He tried suing the bar for letting him drive drunk.

exCrumlinBoyo

I don’t think the publican should be at fault here. He is providing a service to consenting adults who were to believe is of normal intelligence. If some fcuking idjet goes and drinks as much as he dose, well that his business, again the publican is providing him the drink but not forcing him to drink. It’s a stupid argument and publicans should not be at fault because of their customer’s stupididity.

mp3guy

Hurrah for Darwin's theory

petes

Oasis.gov.ie wrote:

Patrons of licenced bars and premises in Ireland are expected to behave at all times with due respect for others. The law on conduct in licenced premises changed on 18th August, 2003. It is now an offence under the 2003 Act to supply alcohol to a drunken person and to admit a drunken person to a bar. (A 'drunken person' is someone intoxicated to such a degree that they may endanger themselves or other people). Any licence holder that allows this to occur on their premises is liable to a summary conviction of 1,500 euro for a first offence and 2,000 euro for any subsequent offence.

It seems to me a bit of a grey area. I presume the man was sober from the beginning therefore the publican couldn't refuse him drink. The drink wouldn't have hit him that quick so he wasn't intoxicated to a degree where he couldn't be served. That said what else did he think was going to happen the bloke after 18 brandys.

aidan_walsh

rb_ie wrote:

They were having a drinking contest so as far as I'm concerned he is responsible. It may have been a bit irresponsible for the bar to keep serving him so much in such a short amount of time, but if they were so intent on the contest then they'd have just as easily went to an off-licence and held it at home (providing they were refused service in the bar). Who'd of been responsible then? The off-licence for giving him the drink? I don't think so..

The difference being that since the man was on the publicans property, then the publican has an obligation, legal and moral, to ensure that the man doesn't over do it. At home, its entirely up to the individual.

Both to blame, IMO.

themole

seamus wrote:

That said, if it is a case that the publican supplied them with an initially huge volume of alcohol for consumption on the premises - say a tray of brandy shots or two bottles of brandy - then it certainly is a case of extreme negligence. If his/her solicitor advised them to settle out of court, then there was probably a strong case against them.

The case is in the front page of the irish times website.

It doesn't specify how the drink was served. It also says that the publican denies the drink was even served, having said that they did settle out of court.

The publican does have a certain duty of care. They should not serve you if you are drunk or serve you/your group more drink that they can handle.

The off-licence case case is not applicable as you are not going to drink in the off-licence, where as in a pub you are buying drinks to consume on the premise at that time.

as an example, in boston it is illegal to serve someone more drink that they themselves can handle. This also means if you are at a bar buying a round they can refuse to give it all to you unless you could reasonable drink it yourself.

Noelie

GaRtH_V wrote:

Smart pants?
I worked in a bar for years...its common knowledge....
Just putting it in perspective is all

you got your perspective wrong, 1cl = 10ml
a bottle of whiskey is 70cl so your calculations had him drinking nearly 10 bottles of the stuff.

Peace

Deediddums wrote:

Did he win?

Based on the fact he's in a box now, i think the other guy won.

petes

I want to know what the other guy drank.

themole

From the irish time:

In her action, Ms Nash claimed her husband had visited The Whitehorse Inn and, with three other people, began drinking pints of beer.

After consuming some pints of beer, it was claimed that Mr Nash, with the alleged knowledge and implied consent of Ms Fitzpatrick, had engaged in a competition with another man to see who could drink the most brandy.

It is alleged Mr Nash and his colleague were served approximately 18 brandies each within the space of 90 minutes.

connundrum

themole wrote:

From the irish time: 18 brandies each

I'd say the other guy, whilst obviously grieving for his mate, must have felt quite the hardy bastardo.

petes

connundrum wrote:

I'd say the other guy, whilst obviously grieving for his mate, must have felt quite the hardy bastardo.

lol.

Fey!

Can we put this guy forward for a Darwin Award?

petes

Fey! wrote:

Can we put this guy forward for a Darwin Award?

Nah. I still think sticking your balls in a golf ball washing machine is much much worse.

Wacker

The title of this thread is very misleading: the publican wasn't held responsible, as the case was settled before responsibility could be assigned.
Very irresponsible on the part of the publican; by around shot twelve the two of them would surely have been reduced to incoherent idiots. But, as someone who has done something similair myself, I believe strongly that they did make their own decision, and they must have been in some way aware of the potential consequences. I would like to have seen how the courts would have ruled on such a case; the law that was quoted would indicate that the fine would have been significantly less than the 100,000 euro, if I am understanding it properly.

petes

Wacker wrote:

by around shot twelve the two of them would surely have been reduced to if I aincoherent idiots..

Not really seeing as they drank them in such a short space of time.

Wacker

petes wrote:

Not really seeing as they drank them in such a short space of time.

Well, in my experience, if you drink a vast amount of alcohol very quickly, it will hit you in about ten minutes. Obviously, there would be a major margin of error attached to that, but these guys were drinking over ninety minutes. I cannot believe that the pair of them would still be in any way coherent by the end.

muffler

Wacker wrote:

I cannot believe that the pair of them would still be in any way coherent by the end.

How did they manage to order the last couple of rounds?

Wacker

muffler wrote:

How did they manage to order the last couple of rounds?

I'm sure through pointing and nodding they could get the message across. When there's a will there's a way!