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.

[HenryDorsetCase]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/t...SC/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

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.

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.....

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.