comment: >
  
  and she's going to win
  see Ontario law
  but unfortunately see has $15 million worth of creditors
context: I guess if you’re on the hook for a $15 million dollar damage bill, you may as well sue everyone in sight. >
  
  Maybe they can change the venue for the suit to be down in America. That kind of responsibility-ducking and carpet-suing is a little embarrassing for us. >
  
  
  
  Over-serving alcohol to a guest is probably more serious in Canada than in the United States of America.
  
  
  Of course this happened in President's Choice Brand® London. >
  
  In the US, the woman would have a case. I used to tend bar. It is the bartender's responsibility to cut people off if they are getting drunk. 
  It is actually pretty scary. I once had a patron climb over the bar and take a drink. When I took it back (because that is way illegal), I was fired because the guy was super rich. I know a bartender who cut someone off. That person came back at closing and shot the bartender twice. Bartender survived, thankfully. >
  
  Read the article, she's not suing because they over-served her. She's suing because they STOPPED serving her and kicked her out of the venue, and she claims they should've taken "steps to ensure she would not drive home."
  Basically saying by cutting her off and kicking her out it's somehow their fault because they should've known she was an idiot who would then drive home... trying to extend their liability to actions she took AFTER they removed her from their premises as if they owed her a personal babysitter to accompany her and make sure she didn't drive. >
  
  Given the jurisdiction.....she'd very well have a case.
  SmartServe training in Ontario teaches you that you're liable for a customer's safety right up until they're sober. Even if you call a cab, get them home, and they trip over a their own porch and smack their head against the doorstep.
  It's kinda over-the-top, but them's really the rules.
  ​
  It doesn't excuse criminal behaviour or fines related to such, of course. But there are fines for the establishment, and they do suck. >
  
  Smart serve training and what a civil suit would actually find are not necessarily the same thing. >
  
  For sure.
  A lack of proper evidence can cause problems for civil suits, even if that's what actually happened. >
  
  She broke a gas line with her car and it exploded 4 suburban houses. Lmao her standing in front of the house she drove into, “huh doesn’t look so bad.” massive explosion rips through neighborhood >
  
  It was probably like the end of Season 4 of Stranger Things >
  
  Most flattering picture of Marilyn Manson within the past 10 years be like >
  
  Someone else here on Reddit once said Marilyn Manson looks like Nic Cage playing Marilyn Manson and I haven’t been able to unsee it since. >
  
  Thanks >
  
  Plot twist: 
  Daddy and daughter additionally sue Manson, claiming his music inspired her to go on a bender and drive into the house. >
  
  Must've been a fucking nice house to do 15m damage >
  
  Four houses and contents in Ontario. >
  
  Contents inside: At least 7 injured people >
  
  Wow, there is a lot going on here, lol >
  
  Why is she not suing the car manufacturer as well for not selling cars with a breathalyzer for engine ignition requirement? >
  
  You spoke too soon buddy >
  
  Take responsibility of your own stupidity >
  
  There’s a lot of blame being thrown at the bar but end of the day she kept drinking, she drove, she destroyed 4 homes, and she stood there. Sounds like a clear case of “she won’t take responsibility”. So she’s blaming everyone else but serving her time. Only person I blame is them. She prob regularly gets drunk and does something. There’s prob a history of drunken outburst >
  
  I understand that. But taking the responsibility of the act and placing it on the bar as if this person didn’t have a responsibility knowing they were drinking to decide to not drive, to pre plan a ride home, or to think. To say they could drink themselves into a stupor, destroy ppls home but then place the responsibility of this individuals action on the bar that is crazy. Regardless this person made the choice to go out, to plan to “turn up”, knowingly continued to drink,  drank to the point of being removed, then to get in a vehicle, destroy property, and then watch these homes burn, and as a spit in the face say it’s not their fault it’s the bar cause they let them drink? That sounds absurd. So this woman gets no responsibility of hours prior knowing she was gonna to be drinking heavy? Naw talking about the bar as if she doesn’t have responsibility doesn’t sit right with me. There are numerous point that she could have decided not to drive and this could have been adverted. Naw she can go to prison >
  
  
  To say they could drink themselves into a stupor, destroy ppls home but then place the responsibility of this individuals action on the bar that is crazy.
  
  Well, the law talks about partial responsibility, not complete liability. So she still gets held accountable for the criminal side of things and part of the civil side.  
  
  So this woman gets no responsibility of hours prior knowing she was gonna to be drinking heavy?
  
  No one is saying the woman gets away free. I'm only saying that some states in the U.S. would also hold the bar accountable for its role in the accidents and they should be. The same if a business sold products that poisoned its customers. >
  
  I wasn’t stating you. I was speaking of many are focusing on the bars responsibility in this, which we can debate, the law will handle that. The debate for me is she is suing to shuck responsibility in her part and that’s my point.  She is suing to give someone else the blame instead of her, which was the active participant. The law will take care of that bar. But her suing is her saying she think that she has no fault in this. And that is the absurd part for me. I’m not debating the law. I’m debating her audacity for a law suit to say that the bar is the reason she drove their and did this so they should pay. The bar may have the legal responsibility to stop serving her. But she was 100 percent at fault for the 12 million in damage she did >
  
  
  The bar may have the legal responsibility to stop serving her. But she was 100 percent at fault for the 12 million in damage she did
  
  If the bar has a legal responsibility, then she can't be 100% at fault. Those are two contradictory statements is what I'm telling you. 
  Also, anyone can file a lawsuit over anything. Even though it's unlikely a jury or judge will find the bar responsible for all of the damages, there is nothing wrong with aiming high and landing somewhere in the middle. >
  
  It drives me crazy that any level of intoxication while driving is accepted in North America.
  I visited a friend in the Czech Republic, and I was impressed that the laws prevented him from having a single beer before getting behind the wheel.
  My parents told me when I got my license: “If you have even a single drink and get into a life-changing accident, you’ll question whether things would have been different if you were 100% sober for the rest of your life. One drink isn’t worth it.”
  It’s so disturbing how cavalier people are about drinking & driving. They drive themselves out knowing they’ll be drinking, then drink more than intended [which anyone who’s even had alcohol knows is a risk of drinking], then drive their happy asses home because they don’t want to leave their car.
  Infuriating. >
  
  After one drink, I wouldn't question shit because you can barely feel it. This chick had way, way more than a single drink. If I'm going out, I have 2-3 ciders max depending on the size that's served and how many hours I'm out and about. The idea that you can't have any at all and still drive seems like it's coming from people that don't drink at all and don't know how it affects people. >
  
  I don’t have a major problem with one- or two-drink driving (even though I won’t do it myself). 
  My problem is with the culture in North America that normalizes legit impaired driving. The media normalizes it, and many courts don’t take it seriously unless there are multiple arrests or someone is seriously injured or killed. 
  Also: I have a high tolerance & start feeling a buzz after about 3 drinks. Still won’t drink after one unless it’s been a few hours. Legal or not, I want to be at my best when I’m driving, but I also understand that reasonable people can disagree & be comfortable driving after one or two. >
  
  How does the media normalize drunk driving? Everything I see is always against it. Maybe I'm missing something? >
  
  It’s one of those things that you don’t notice until you start noticing, if that makes sense. 
  I just googled “drinking driving television Reddit” and there are several discussions about it. People where drinking & driving isn’t socially acceptable tend to notice it more because to them, they’re like, “Wait, what? Did they just have several drinks then get behind the wheel?” Americans aren’t likely to notice because it doesn’t seem unusual. >
  
  Funny thing, if the bar had continued to serve her and then she drove home, it is almost possible that they'd have a case. As it is, they cut her off and acted (semi) responsibly. If this case doesn't get immediately dismissed it'll spell some tough times ahead for the US hospitality industry >
  
  They didn't exactly cut her off..  She was kicked out of the building by security.
  
  Funny thing, if the bar had continued to serve her and then she drove home, it is almost possible that they'd have a case.
  
  I don't see the difference..
  They stopped serving her (same as a bar closing), then she drove home. >
  
  Not sure about elsewhere, but in Ontario at least it's illegal to serve someone who's drunk. It's a weird paradox, but those who serve alcohol are legally required to stop serving them.
  The bar cutting her off and kicking her out is different from the bar simply closing for the night, as the bar stopping service to specifically her is respecting this law. >
  
  Even down here in America its a risky business, one of my local bars had their liquor license revoked entirely due to over serving, after not one but two occasions of drunk patrons leaving their bar crashed their cars and died. Theres definitely a degree of responsibility >
  
  
  Theres definitely a degree of responsibility 
  
  ... in America.  
  Hey, fun thought. How about adults take responsibility for themselves?  No one forced her into her car. Cabs are a thing. 
  I don't know if she has a license any longer, but I sure hope she retires before she gets it back. >
  
  What about guns? Does have the seller or manufacturer any responsibility?
  So why the bar has? >
  
  Try reading this and ask yourself if it makes sense to a person reading it in English. >
  
  I think I misplaced "have". But why the down votes? :/ >
  
  Read it aloud. It doesn't make sense as written. It's also being downvoted because it's an unrelated issue. Most arguments for manufacturer responsibility that I've seen revolve around advertising and creating a certain image. >
  
  No personal responsibility allowed. >
  
  It's always someone else's fault >
  
  So Marilyn Manson actually has nothing to do with her case. Thanks headline writer. Chatbot would have done better. >
  
  3rd Party Liability laws are no joke. I was a bartender in Washington State for years and I never had the misfortune of dealing with that shit as I never had a problem cutting motherfuckers off, but even being a responsible bartender isnt always gonna protect you 100% of the time. >
  
  I haven't spent much time in Canadian jails (not lately, anyway) and I'm not familiar with applicable Canadian laws -- but in what jurisdiction is hospitality staff responsible for transporting an evicted  customer off-site, to their home or wherever? >
  
  how to put blame on others when you have no one to blame but YOURSELF >
  
  She ordered the drinks. She turned the key. She has to face the consequences.
  A waiter or a catering company aren't babysitters. >
  
  I agree.  I worked a late nite/after hours type bar.  Every single person that came through the door was drunk already.  But, it was "my fault" if they left that way.  So confusing.  People need to practice self control. Seems easy! >
  
  No one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore. >
  
  I don't know about Canada, but some U.S. states have laws that say it's illegal for a bartender to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated, and if they do keep serving them they can be held civilly liable for any accident that customer later causes. So, they may have a case. >
  
  Read the article. The venue cut her off and kicked her out.
  This is the stated reason for the lawsuit.
  
  According to the CBC, Leis and her father are accusing Ovations Ontario Food Services of having no regard for her "intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired." >
  
  If that's what happened, she'll probably get a settlement cause I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this. I do wonder though, was she all alone when they booted her? >
  
  
  I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this.
  
  There's no chance they settle, because there's no chance they lose.
  The bar doesn't have a responsibility to make sure you have a safe way home. Legally speaking, you're required to know your way home before getting blackout wasted, so the bar CAN'T reliably serve anyone if they have to confirm you have a safe way home first. Anyone in that situation could just lie and leave MASSIVE legal repercussions with the bar.
  Theoretical question: If the bar didn't kick her out, how would she have gotten home? Was she just not planning to leave all night? No obviously not - She had plans to drive. If she apparently had no other way home, she wasn't going to suddenly become LESS wasted by drinking more. Theoretically speaking, they could have kept her in the bar, but that makes her a nuisance to other customers, especially if she's just going to complain about wanting to drink and try to leave when she can't get more drinks. They can't legally detain her.
  Not a single part of her claim places the onus of the explosion on the bar. The bar acted responsibly and stopped her from drinking when she appeared too drunk. They have no obligation to safely see her home in addition to stopping her from drinking, they can't say "No you're not going anywhere, you're too drunk," because they don't have the right to detain anyone - And no, she absolutely did not have to drive home, she could have called a friend, a family member, a cab, an uber - There are many options in this day and age that you're expected to consider BEFORE drinking, which she clearly did not.
  SHE acted irresponsibly by having no way home after drinking heavily. DUI falls on the driver, not on the person who served the driver. >
  
  That's a great explanation on why I'm wrong. Thanks, I hadn't thought of those angles. >
  
  Party girl hag >
  
  
  "intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired." 
  
  Jfc they should fire the lawyer that submitted this, if they even have one. >
  
  Ya had me at Marilyn Manson !! >
  
  it's really crazy how people don't read the articles before offering their opinion. This was in Canada. >
  
  The road-rule in Mexico is, don't wave your half-empty tequila bottle at police you encounter. They'll only want a share. 8-)