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

Barmen charged of killing Man with Booze

drunkmonkey

Linky

What next will we be able to sue for hangovers?

Feel sorry for the 2 chaps involved and the poor chap that's not around, seem like a tragic accident...
What do you think, are the barmen responsible, is the victim?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Gummy Panda

Not going to comment on case without full facts but back when i was working as a barman going into college, I was informed in great detail by the owner that the pub accepts responsibility for all patrons on the premises. He also made it clear that its actually illegal to be drunk in public and the pub is part of this rule.

So if someone seemed too drunk, we were told to cut them off and inform security. Security would then escort them from the premises. This was so they didn't fall or have an accident in the pub and later sue us for still serving them while visibly drunk.

So i can see how DPP has a case if the man didn't drink anything more outside of the pub.

Ross_Mahon

I think the Barmen have every right to refuse someone that looks intoxicated, I've seen it been done and the customer loosing the head over it, Its for their own good.

dyl10

When your business is serving a dangerous drug to the public, you certainly do hold some responsibility.

spadder

dyl10 wrote: »

When your business is serving a dangerous drug to the public, you certainly do hold some responsibility.

What if I buy a chicken from my butcher, under-cook it, and as a result I die from salmonella. Is the butcher liable?

Kipperhell

I refused a guy becuse he could barely walk and his words were slurred. His friend came back up and explained his friend had a disability and wasn't drunk. Looked over and realised he had crutches and special shoes. Very embarrassed but it was seen as an innocent mistake.

Depending on what actually happened the barmen may actually bare some responsibility. The person drinking may not have said no but the barmen could have been aware of how drunk he was.

ShooterSF

spadder wrote: »

What if I buy a chicken from my butcher, under-cook it, and as a result I die from salmonella. Is the butcher liable?

Or you buy a pack of pain killers and knock them back in the chemist.

Gummy Panda

spadder wrote: »

What if I buy a chicken from my butcher, under-cook it, and as a result I die from salmonella. Is the butcher liable?

No but neither would an off-license be liable for selling you a lot of booze.

If you bought a chicken dish from a restaurant, the chef under cooked it and as a result you died from salmonella then yes, the restaurant would be liable.

Kradock

Maybe the case should be tried here ......facts people

Edit . Could they have been spiking his drink . I know of 2 barmen who used to do this to blokes they had a grudge against.

Bob_Harris

Did the guy die on the floor of the bar?

What about drink drivers who kill themselves or others? Are barmen liable for those too?

There has to more to this than what we can read in that article. I mean, 16 months of a "mammoth and complex" investigation?

bluto63

Unless the guy was falling about the place knocking tables over, the bar staff shouldn't be held responsible. Besides, if they did refuse him, it was the guys birthday, someone else would've gone up and bought him a drink

The_Minister

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Did the barmen hold down the guy and pour it down his throat? He was an adult and it was his own fault in my opinion.

Normally I would agree with you.

However, someone who has had 11 shots in quick succession is not capable of rationally deciding to have a 12th.

A barman has a duty, if someone who is dangerously intoxicated seeks more alcohol, to refuse to serve them, as they may be unable to make that decision themselves.

bullpost

Sounds like theres more to this than meets the eye .
I'm no legal expert but a charge of manslaughter without any precedent seems fairly severe - I would have thought a lesser charge of negligence or whatever would have been more apt.

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

The_Minister

NothingMan wrote: »

If they get prosecuted what are we going to do? Sign a waiver when you start drinking in a bar? Arresting an off license worker for selling me a litre of vodka after I decide to drink it all in 20 minutes?

People are responsible for their own health in these situations.

CountingCrows wrote: »

Might have been the minibar in his room that put him over the edge, maybe they should charge whoever stocked that :rolleyes:

:rolleyes: To both of you.

They would not be prosecuted if they serve alcohol to a sober person.
You may buy a ton of alcohol, but you make that choice in full sobriety, knowing what you are doing

That is very different from someone whose judgment is impaired, and cannot make a decision being served alcohol.

TheZohanS

The_Minister wrote: »

Normally I would agree with you.

However, someone who has had 11 shots in quick succession is not capable of rationally deciding to have a 12th.

A barman has a duty, if someone who is dangerously intoxicated seeks more alcohol, to refuse to serve them, as they may be unable to make that decision themselves.

That's what it was, I remember reading/hearing about it in the news at the time.

The barman knew this guy was drinking all these shots in a row.

Macca07

Yes, but on a fellas birthday???

I know the barman has his job to do and probably should've refused him.
From working in a pub myself, I know its not the easiest thing to refuse someone a drink when they've been in there for a few hours giving u their money!!!

As for this case, the two barmen should not be charged with this, and its an absolute disgrace that they have.

What are publicans supposed to do, refuse everyone who has had a few drinks, this is Ireland after all!!!

Turd Ferguson

The_Minister wrote: »

Normally I would agree with you.

However, someone who has had 11 shots in quick succession is not capable of rationally deciding to have a 12th.

A barman has a duty, if someone who is dangerously intoxicated seeks more alcohol, to refuse to serve them, as they may be unable to make that decision themselves.

Completely disagree...if you are downing 11 shots in quick succession you deserve what you get. He was a fool for drinking so much so quick and the blame should not be passed to anyone else. Sure, the barmen shouldnt have given him more, but to be held responsible for his death is ridiculous

The_Minister

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Completely disagree...if you are downing 11 shots in quick succession you deserve what you get. He was a fool for drinking so much so quick and the blame should not be passed to anyone else. Sure, the barmen shouldnt have given him more, but to be held responsible for his death is ridiculous

Look at this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5e4caLZUrFw

Should that man be served more alcohol?

Have you never drank more than you originally intended?
One leads to another, and to one more, and then....?
Because I will say right now I have.

When someone has taken 11 shots of alcohol they are too drunk to recognise that they should stop, and the barmen have a duty not to give them any more.

No one is saying that if you see a drunk man you have to stop him drinking.
You just cannot give him more alcohol when he already dangerously drunk.
Someone who is drunk cannot make rational decisions about the consequences of taking drink, and those who give them more drink, even though they know that the person has taken a dangerous amount already, should be in some way liable.

Chucky the tree

The barmen broke the law, of course they should be done.

c-note

will the state have to show that the man did not consume ANYTHING else after leaving the bar..??

if he had chips that could've caused him to vomit...

if there was a mini-bar in his room does that constitute attempted murder on the part of the hotel?

will my local shop be prosecuted when i die of smoking related illnesses??

will toyota be held responsible when i die after loosing control at the wheel?

jesus.. i may aswell sue my parents... if it wernt for them i'd never have been born and wouldnt have to die.. and so i guess they will eventually be responsible for my death!

i know if i was a barman, i'd be enforcing a three drink limit from now on!

The_Minister

c-note wrote: »

will the state have to show that the man did not consume ANYTHING else after leaving the bar..??

if he had chips that could've caused him to vomit...

if there was a mini-bar in his room does that constitute attempted murder on the part of the hotel?

will my local shop be prosecuted when i die of smoking related illnesses??

will toyota be held responsible when i die after loosing control at the wheel?

jesus.. i may aswell sue my parents... if it wernt for them i'd never have been born and wouldnt have to die.. and so i guess they will eventually be responsible for my death!

i know if i was a barman, i'd be enforcing a three drink limit from now on!

:rolleyes: How about you read the thread and you'll realise why this case is different to all of your examples.

c-note

why?
beacuase i'd be sober in the above examples....?

well you'd have a point and indeed the law reflects that:
you cannot enter into a contract while under the influence of drink or drugs...
purchasing alcahol constitutes a contract,
so legally once you've had one drink you cant legally buy another.

of course its ridiculous.

it boils down to a question of personal responsibility:
if i kill a man while drunk.. i'm responsible
if i kill myself while drunk... i'm responsible

while it is tragic for his family and friends... i think its thowing out common sense to prosecute barstaff

Senna

The deceased man was a resident in the hotel, it wasn't a club or pub and i bet there was no security staff on. In my mind these factors are very important.
Its easy to refuse service in a pub/club, but in a hotel the resident has paid quite a bit of money to stay, they have a bed up stairs so staff normally know they wont be a danger to themselves outside the premises (which is always a concern of mine in such situations). In my experience residents could be served after a non-resident might be refused.
Also this man wasn't on his own and it was his birthday, if he was refused it could have started trouble for the barmen. As only two men were charged, its possible they were the only two staff on the premises, if there was trouble, a group of birthday celebrating fellas could have been a large problem for two staff.

Unless it comes out in the trial that these two staff were either profiteering from the deceased man or continued serving after a warning, then this was just a tragic accident and the two men should not be "made examples of".

irish_goat

This could set a very dangerous precedent. I've worked in large bars where it's impossible to know who is buying drink for who. If it was this guy's birthday then there's a high chance he was sitting down most of the time and his friends were buying rounds hence the barmen might never have really seen the guy unless they noticed him if he got up to go to the toilet.

Also where would it end? If a drunk leaves the pub and drives home causing a fatal accident could the bartender be sued?

I refused people drink if they're too drunk only to find their friends buying their next one for them and also being grabbed by the throat by a drunk who I refused to serve. I've no doubt that it's a bartender's social duty to not serve drink to someone who has clearly had enough but them being but legally it's totally unfair to blame them for this man's death.

Adyx

daveyboy_1ie wrote: »

Should never be the barmans responsibility to decide what you may or may not have. People refuse to take responsibility for these things and shirk the blame. Poor guys doing their job and somehow they are implicated??? That just does not make sense to me. if he had of gotten into car and killed himself or others would they still be charged?

Feel sorry for him of course, but people looking to blame others should not look at some poor guys doing their job and destroying their lives too.

Irish law says differently afaik. If something happens to you while you are pissed, whoever served you is technically held responsible.

Senna

irish_goat wrote: »

Also where would it end? If a drunk leaves the pub and drives home causing a fatal accident could the bartender be sued?

In many countries a barman can be held responsible. In the US barmen is more of a profession and they are very aware of their accountability. Here most barmen are at college/school etc or just waiting for a better job to come along.

The_B_Man

is this not exactly what happened with Stephen Gately?

Senna

The_B_Man wrote: »

is this not exactly what happened with Stephen Gately?

Feck sakes, these two Tipperary barmen killed Stephen Gately as well.....string them up!!!!

Proper answer, NO.

11811

Right for starters, this obviously isn't a case of the bartender giving one guy one or two too many, acute alcohol poisoning is not choking on your own vomit... If someone is out of there tree drunk, the staff/management have a duty to ensure the safety and well-being of their customers, this not a social obligation - its law. by the sounds of this something seriously went wrong in this respect.

This cannot be a case of "sure we only only gave him one or two" for it to go this far, but to be honest, one can't really say much until given more factual evidence...

pistonsvox

Wait a minute...

what?

Barmen are supposed to babysit their customers