Australian landmark ruling makes pub responsible for death of drunk biker

[Bob]

A landmark ruling points towards publicans being responsible if their patrons come to harm while intoxicated.

The ruling follows an investigation into the death of Shane John Scott, 41, who was allowed to retrieve his motorcycle after he had agreed to it being locked in a hotel storeroom.

Around 10 minutes after leaving the Tandara Motor Inn, Scott hit the guard rail of a bridge. His blood alcohol reading was 0.253 at the time of death.

In a majority decision, the court found Mr Scott's widow, Sandra Scott, could claim damages because the hotel and its licensee, Michael Andrew Kirkpatrick, owed her husband a duty of care, but adding that there would be many situations in which there was no obligation at all for a publican to prevent a person leaving a hotel and potentially harming themselves.

[LBD]

The ruling follows an investigation into the death of Shane John Scott, 41, who was allowed to retrieve his motorcycle after he had agreed to it being locked in a hotel storeroom.

Thats an interesting one, I wonder what the circumstances were behind "he had agreed to it being locked in a hotel storeroom"
It is worded like it was the hotel insisting on locking up his bike if the rider had to agree to it. And was that before he started or after he had been drinking? Was the hotel manager initially acting responsible and then changed his mind for some reason?

And if you take this to the next level, if a person leaves a pub drunk and gets behind a wheel... and the publican knows this, and then the driver has an accident killing others, has the publican commited manslaughter?

How much effort need a publican make to stop an intoxicated person from driving before he is justified in throwing his hands in the air and giving up?

I can see a big can of worms here.

[Waxxa]

under this ruling, as you say LBD, all publicans could be up for manslaughter if a patron is killed outside their premises.

Uneasy times for the publicans...

[007XX]

I tend to agree with LBD here...too many loopholes and details missing.

Ultimately though, the consummer shouldn't really be the publican's responsabilitie surely?

Bar owners everywhere have enough of a hard time as it is enforcing the "drunken and disorderly shall not be served" motto...

[Tone165]

I heard that there is a small movement lobbying to make ppl responsible for their own stupidity....nah....it could never work!!!!!!!!!!

[ManDownUnder]

Ultimately though, the consumer shouldn't really be the publican's responsability surely?

Agreed 500%!

What if the drunk person then robs a bank? Is the publican at fault? What if they murder someone, drives drunk, or commits any other nasty act?

Or on the flip side - would they get the credit for anything good the person does? Drunk person x saves a child from drowning "YAY THE PUBLICAN - HE GOT THE GUY DRUNK!"

Boad of lollix! Part of planning a big night out is planning how I get home.

[Grumpy Gnomb]

This is another example of the aussie courts making a terrible decision that makes no sense. Yes the pub should not have sold him the drink, but it is also the riders responsibility to know when enough is enough.

[scumdog]

Intoxicate persons aren't allowed to be in NZ pubs so this would never happen here.:oi-grr::whistle:

[HenryDorsetCase]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/tas/TASSC/2009/2.html


read the first page or so of this: its the fact scenario. skip the legal part (though its quite good).

also: refer to the discussion here (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showthread.php?p=1900267#post1900267)

As I said, I just dont have a problem. And someone had money:there was a QC involved.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Ultimately though, the consummer shouldn't really be the publican's responsabilitie surely?.

they already are: read the sections of the Sale of Likker act I posted up in the other thread.

Mods: how about a thread merge?

[HenryDorsetCase]

This is another example of the aussie courts making a terrible decision that makes no sense. Yes the pub should not have sold him the drink, but it is also the riders responsibility to know when enough is enough.

................really?

please cite some further examples.

[LBD]

I wonder what the circumstances were behind "he had agreed to it being locked in a hotel storeroom"
.

[QUOTE=HenryDorsetCase;1900809][url]
read the first page or so of this: its the fact scenario. skip the legal part (though its quite good).

Thanks for the link, it is a good read as you suggest...

It seems the deceased, a mate and the publican entered into a responsible agreement to store the bike before drinking got serious and that the deseased's wife would be called to pick him up later in the evening.

It also seems that the deceased had trouble controlling his behaviour with a few under the belt...(Like the odd rum drinker I know) And got it into his head that he would ride home for what ever reason he had.

It also seems the publican tried to convince him not to, but gave in to aggression from the deceased.

There are lessons in this...what would it take for any of us to give into a mate who had been drinking and wanted his keys?

[FJRider]

Intoxicate persons aren't allowed to be in NZ pubs so this would never happen here.:oi-grr::whistle:

So why don't we get a law passed, that driving "under the influence" would be illegal...





Oh wait..... we have...






haven't we... ???

If I buy a motorbike from a motorbike shop, and crash it on the way home, can I sue the bike shop for not ensuring I had the sufficient skills to ride it ???

[98tls]

So why don't we get a law passed, that driving "under the influence" would be illegal...





Oh wait..... we have...






haven't we... ???

If I buy a motorbike from a motorbike shop, and crash it on the way home, can I sue the bike shop for not ensuring I had the sufficient skills to ride it ??? Worth a shot mate,this is NZ,it seems almost anything is possible.

[quickbuck]

Worth a shot mate,this is NZ,it seems almost anything is possible.

Ummmm, This is NZ, not USA..... :whistle:

Anyhow, yep, I think they have really opened a nasty can of worms on this one.
You aren't allowed to be intoxicated in Aussie pubs either... May be that is why the lynch mob has decided to slam the publican in this case.

[98tls]

Ummmm, This is NZ, not USA..... :whistle:
Theres a difference?

[DingoZ]

Having been a licencee in Aus. I can attest to the amount of laws governing the "Responsible Service" of alchohol. There are provisions that must be met by the publican or the duty manager in regards to a "Duty of Care" for every patron that is partaking of the services at said establishment. There are also very harsh penalties if a publican or duty manager, or indeed bar staff, if they have been found to have continued to serve an intoxicated person, or said intoxicated person is found to be still on the premises, if the police do a spot check, without all reasonable measures to have said person removed from the premises in a safe manner.

Some of the "Reasonable measures"

1. Food must be able to be purchased at all times while alchohol is being served.
2. Use of the phone to call a taxi if requested, can not be refused. (Some pubs refuse to let patrons use the pub phone, rather they would make the patrons use a public phone).
3. Refusal of service for intoxicated persons. (And yes there were a set of indicators which the bar staff had to be aware of, so that they could tell if the person was intoxicated to the point for refusal of service, and which varied from person to person..)

I was lucky in some respects, as I ran a local country pub, where everyone knew and respected the rules, and the place that they chose to call their local. If they wanted to get tanked after a hard week at work. They used to come in and hand me the car keys, I would hand them a room key, as I had 10 or so rooms above the bar for guests and so forth. Or alternatively they got a ride home from one of my staff, and they came and picked up their keys from the pub the next day. Food was always available, no matter what time it was. And the bowls on the bar were never without bar snacks in them...

But having said all of the above. I believed then and still do now, that it is still an individuals choice to drink, and they should be held responsible for their actions, if they choose to drink to excess and then end up hurting themselves or indeed an innocent other party.

[quickbuck]

But having said all of the above. I believed then and still do now, that it is still an individuals choice to drink, and they should be held responsible for their actions, if they choose to drink to excess and then end up hurting themselves or indeed an innocent other party.


100% correct there.
It is sad we are now living in a society where it is always somebody else's fault.

98tls, you're right... even good ole NZ is going down this path... just like Merka did.... and as it seems Oz is too.

[FJRider]

100% correct there.
It is sad we are now living in a society where it is always somebody else's fault.



How many times after an accident/crash, the first words out of either mouth is ... not my fault...

If it is admitted at the time, the first minutes in court causes memory fade... I never said that...

If you lead your learner child on a motorcycle ride, on the motorway, at learner speeds... then realise it is dangerous... the LAW must be at fault for making it so... :dodge:

[JohnnyBoston]

Australia pretty much does whatever America does, unlike N.Z., where we pretty much follow what the Brits do. Took a while for the Oz lawmakers to catch up with the States on this one, though... the 1st case of a pub being sued out of business there due to a drunk patron/driver fatality was back in the early 80`s.