Refusal of service to a pregnant woman

cafecolour

If I, for instance, worked in a bar, could I legally refuse to give a drink (or shall we say, more than one drink - I think one drink is considered fine by most research) or a token to the fag machine to a pregnant woman, because it's bad for the unborn child?

Victor

If you have those concerns, should you be in business in the first place?

Reloc8

Either is potentially a breach of Equality legislation. However persons serving in bars are obliged not to serve intoxicated people (hah etc.). [edit : just occurred to me that whilst it is a specific offence to do so - yes I have seen this prosecuted eh once or possibly twice, two barman have recently come before the courts charged with reckless endangerment and possibly manslaughter - can't remember - arising from the death allegedly from alcohol poisoning of one of the customers in a bar in which they work or worked. That's a new departure].

To make your hypothetical complete, I presume we should assume that you are perfectly satisfied for good reason that the booze/fags is for the pregnant woman and no one else.

Mr Yellow

Would that not be like refusing a fat person food? Classed as discrimination i reckon.... (i'll have a diet coke with that by the way )

Our man in Havana

Indeed, the bartender is not a moral guardian. If someone wants to abuse their body it is none of the bartenders concern.

shaneybaby

Bond-007 wrote: »

Indeed, the bartender is not a moral guardian. If someone wants to abuse their body it is none of the bartenders concern.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/barmen-charged-as-hotel-guest-dies-from-alcohol-intoxication-1927506.html

not that i agree with it but maybe it is....

seamus

shaneybaby wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/barmen-charged-as-hotel-guest-dies-from-alcohol-intoxication-1927506.html

not that i agree with it but maybe it is....

That details of that case are slightly different than "moral guardian", as you'll see when the case goes to trial.

In the OP's case, unless there are legal grounds for refusing to serve the pregnant woman, you could find yourself on the wrong side of equality legislation.

amen

Indeed, the bartender is not a moral guardian. If someone wants to abuse their body it is none of the bartenders concern.

i could be wrong but I thought a law was passed some years ago charging those who hurt an unborn child ?
could the mother be charged under this?

Reloc8

^ re amen's post, yes an injury to an unborn child can be an injury in law. Proving that such an injury occurred because of consumption of substances would often be extremely hard. In theory however, I suppose the answer is yes.

Tom Young

Reloc8 wrote: »

^ re amen's post, yes an injury to an unborn child can be an injury in law. Proving that such an injury occurred because of consumption of substances would often be extremely hard. In theory however, I suppose the answer is yes.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199798/ldjudgmt/jd970724/gneral01.htm

Has that been tested? We had a discussion on that an TJM posted the above report.

I think this was just Murder etc. But I'd be interested all the same, as I assumed the same, in case I give an impression to the contrary.

Reloc8

Sorry Tom I should have gone a bit deeper than merely chucking out a broad assertion.

Section 58 Civil Liability Act 1961 provides that the law of wrongs (so tortious injury or death) applies to an unborn child in like manner as if the child were born, provided the child is subsequently born alive. This only gives civil remedy but is anecdotally relevant.

In respect of e.g. Assaults the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act refers throughout to causing harm or applying force or endangering '(to) another'. Nothing explicitly states that 'another' includes an unborn child but nothing excludes it.

In this country the proposal that one could be guilty of assault or homicide of a child in the womb has not been addressed specifically to my knowledge however not least arising from the link you provide I would take it that similar principles apply :-

a) if a criminal act is done which injures a child in utero subsequently born alive, that is capable of constituting an assault on the child.
b) if a criminal act is done which injures a child in utero to the extent that although the child is born alive it subsequently dies and there is sufficient causal relationship between the injury and the death that is capable of constituting a homicide.
c) if an act of any character is done which injures a child in utero and the child is not subsequently born alive the act is not capable of constituting an offence against that child.

All of that largely reflects the oldest authority of which I'm aware (Walker v Great Northern Railway Company of Ireland (1890) Q.B. Div 69) so I would offer it as view/prediction rather than a description of the position.

It need hardly be said that my use of the word 'child' above is for the purpose of describing this issue and is not intended to carry a religious, moral, medical or philosophical significance.

cafecolour

Thanks, the injury to an unborn child is an interesting one. And I didn't know pregnant women were a legally protected class. This was purely hypothetical - the case of too many drinks and people with no legal background at all talking ****e

As to the Hayes Hotel case, I know nothing about it, but I'd hope there was extenuating circumstances beyond just serving him when he should have been cut off. IE perhaps they were complicit in encouraging him to keep going or something ("Oh come on, it's your birthday and you're in Ireland, you can't go to bed yet!"). Again, pure speculation, I know absolutely nothing about the actual circumstances.

Tom Young

cafecolour wrote: »

If I, for instance, worked in a bar, could I legally refuse to give a drink (or shall we say, more than one drink - I think one drink is considered fine by most research) or a token to the fag machine to a pregnant woman, because it's bad for the unborn child?

Back to the OPs question.

Technically, I've seen people refused service in ways which are quite creative and would be difficult to fault in relation to the Equality Acts/Legislation. I think particularly of publicans who don't want certain clients in bars, pubs and clubs.

In re. a pregnant woman or man with some form of illness which is apparent (not that I want to draw ire from ladies, but just for example) I would say you would want to be very careful, as many of the contributors have stated. It is not your job to assess same, unless you have a qualified and valid reason for making such a remark.

In relation to the legislative changes, I'd make sure you have guidance from the publican and union or federation whether VFI or LVA in relation to the validity and process of valid cut-offs and liability etc.

Tom