nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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

[Deleted User]

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!

KdjaCL

My brother was done in US years ago for serving someone who got into his car, my borther took the keys off him off as they do and continued serving, the guy had a spare got into his and wrote it off.

My bother was illegal at the time and was arresterd and charged, when police found out about the spare key he was released and never brought to court.

The pub shoudnt have served him that amount, but theyare responsible for stupidness.

kdjac

wow sierra

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.

God god - tell us what you really think!!! In my experience lots of Publicans and Bar Staff, at least where I choose to drink, treat their customers very well. Of course they are in it for the money, like everyone else in business, but it doesn't mean they all run their businesses badly.

In this case it is unfair to blame the publican, the guy was 42yrs old and should be responsible for his own stupidity. His wifes action in suing is just another example of the awful "compo culture" which is ruining this country. Can nobody take responsibility for their own actions anymore - its usually the Corporation or the Guards who are held responsible for all the ills of the world. Now its the publicans turn.

Blisterman

The publican didn't force the drink down his throat. He drank them himself. Therefore, he's responsible for his own actions.

I hate the way so many people try to blame others for their own actions.

Eg. "I only shot up my school because I saw it in GTA".

josephine20

wow sierra wrote:

God god - tell us what you really think!!! In my experience lots of Publicans and Bar Staff, at least where I choose to drink, treat their customers very well. Of course they are in it for the money, like everyone else in business, but it doesn't mean they all run their businesses badly.

In this case it is unfair to blame the publican, the guy was 42yrs old and should be responsible for his own stupidity. His wifes action in suing is just another example of the awful "compo culture" which is ruining this country. Can nobody take responsibility for their own actions anymore - its usually the Corporation or the Guards who are held responsible for all the ills of the world. Now its the publicans turn.

Totally agree. For those unfamiliar with running a business, the idea is to make a profit. Then there's the question of who bought the drinks. Did friends chip in and buy some shots for him too? Having experience dealing with the public, saying no in that circumstance you will just be accused of ruining someone's fun. You do serve and you get sued. You can't win.

Jesus, he was old enough to make his own decision on what to drink. Comparing a publican to a drug dealer is kind of pointless, but I'm not going on about that. Also comparing a publican to a pharmacist giving the wrong dosage is irrelevant. A pharmacist giving you a wrong dosage is harming you when you don't know it. A publican giving you 18 shots or whatever it was...well I think you know it's going to have some effect.

I also agree that it is more evidence of the comensation culture. I have seen one situtation where someone's child was messing in a shop and then fell... I'm not really sure what happened. Anyway the mother threatened to sue. It didn't happen but yeah, people need to be responsible for their own actions.

It would have been interesting to see how that case would have played out had it gone all the way to the Supreme Court. I can see legally why the publican would be at fault, but I don't think it's right.

[Deleted User]

If binge drinking is done by fools, do they deserve a fool's end?

il gatto

It used to be the case that publicans reserved the right to not serve somebody. They still do. I have noticed, however, loads of pubs and clubs, refusing entry to the slightly over tipsy. If you have five pints and slur a word, some bouncers won't let you in. That's the other extreme, but the fact that the law quantifies your mental state, apportions blame and possibly prosecutes is disturbing. I find pubs are alot stuffier and less fun since the smoking ban and these laws against serving the intoxicated. The landlords are more aware that their premises is under scrutiny, and seem less tolerant of drunkenes, swearing etc.
I can see why in law, the publican would be apportioned blame, but FFS, 42 years old? There's no accounting for that sort of behavior from an adult. Death by misadventure would be an appropriate verdict, and to hell with compensation or settlements.

nlgbbbblth

Alfasudcrazy wrote:

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.

Underage drinking = the underage drinker is responsible for their actions
Serving alcoholics = the alcoholic is reponsible for their actions
Leaving people driving drunk = drunk drivers are responsible for their actions

You have a point about overcrowding in nightclubs but that's about it.

As for the guy who drank himself to death.
F'uck that guy.
It's his own fault. There should be no compensation.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of trying to blame others.

Wacker

nlgbbbblth wrote:

People need to take responsibility for their own actions instead of trying to blame others.

May the record reflect that the above post is now seconded?

senordingdong

That si ridiculous and really pisses me off.
The publican shouldn't have to pay out.

Dempsey

The man probably wasn't intoxicated until the 17th shot and was well entitled to keep serving him.