What about this one?

**Big Dave** · 19th January 2009, 17:08

Widow sues pub over DUI death

Article from:"http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph
By Sally Glaetzer
January 19, 2009 01:45pm

A WOMAN has successfully sued a pub over the death of her husband in a drink-driving crash in a landmark case that could have repercussions around Australia.

Shane Scott was killed when he crashed his motorcycle while riding home from the Tandara Motor Inn at Triabunna, on Tasmania's east coast, on January 24 2002, The Hobart Mercury reports.

At the time of his death Mr Scott had a blood alcohol reading more than five times the legal limit.

In Hobart this morning the full court of the Supreme Court found the hotel and its then-licensee Michael Andrew Kirkpatrick owed a duty of care to Mr Scott.

In a majority decision, the court found the duty of care was breached and that Mr Scott's widow Sandra should be awarded damages for her husband's death.

That ruling -- thought to be a first in Australia -- overturned the Supreme Court's original dismissal of Mrs Scott's lawsuit in late 2007.

The court heard Mr Scott was drinking at the Tandara Motor Inn after work.

There was talk of police being in the area so he gave his motorbike keys to Mr Kirkpatrick.

But later, having consuming up to eight cans of Jack Daniels and cola, Mr Scott retrieved the keys and rode off.

Full story in The Hobart Mercury

**tri boy** · 19th January 2009, 17:14

What about "duty of care" towards ones self?
Frecking lawyers will have a field day if cases like that are upheld. The drunken squid was at fault, not the publican. MHO

**slofox** · 19th January 2009, 17:34

Personal responsibility? Wha...?

**Boob Johnson** · 19th January 2009, 17:37

Obviously the patron HAS to assume ultimate responsibility BUT...If I were the publican I wouldn't have given the keys back, nor should I. Some degree of responsibility needs to be upheld here on his part. How that translates into a workable law I haven't (& probably won't) given it enough thought.

Ask yourself the question...

If it were your family would you be pissed off that the (sober) publican caved & gave his keys back?

**rainman** · 19th January 2009, 18:51

Of course what the article doesn't say is how he retrieved the keys, and whether the publican was involved in that process. For all we know he could have leaned over the counter and retrieved them without the publican even knowing.

Also, is it legal for the publican to withhold his keys if he had insisted that they be returned? I mean, they're his property... I appreciate it would be the moral thing to do.

If it was me though I'd have gone after the publican for serving him when he was pissed. 7 JD's and Coke = too pissed to ride, don't care who you are, so at the least he shouldn't have given him the 8th one.

And: JDs and Coke, ewwww. Waste of good JDs.

**toycollector10** · 19th January 2009, 18:55

It's 2009 and the publican had a duty of care to the guy he was selling grog to. Not to hand the keys over but prior to that observe that the guy was driving/or on a bike and one pint or beer would have been plenty. Both at fault, one paid the ultimate price. Life/death's tough eh?

**tri boy** · 19th January 2009, 19:15

The bloke went to the pub on his bike, (assume to get pissed).
He got pissed, got his keys back, and wasted himself on the road.
The publican could of had 100+ people to deal with, he's not a nanny for every dropkick that can't get their shit together.
Soceity is full of wankers who will not deal with their own shit sandwich.
And the frecking laws of the lands are pandering to them.

He could of got dropped to the pub, got a taxi there or after drinking, but no, he got wasted, rode, and then wasted for good.
Hows that the publican's fault?

**McJim** · 19th January 2009, 19:19

Mmmm - contributary negligence?

**Boob Johnson** · 19th January 2009, 19:20

Originally Posted by tri boy

The publican could of had 100+ people to deal with, he's not a nanny for every dropkick that can't get their shit together.

Um??? Actually he is, by law. He has a duty of care...by law. In this case it is being tested just how far that goes.

**98tls** · 19th January 2009, 19:30

Can see both sides i guess,personally i think if your old enough to drink then you have given up the right to have a babysitter,what part of dont drink and drive didnt he understand?

**Cookie Monster** · 19th January 2009, 19:37

What a damm joke. I own a pub and man we try to stop as many as we can but people still want to drive home. Personal responsability has to come into it.

**bull** · 19th January 2009, 19:51

Looks like the pub may have to countersue the women for not dropping off her husband or for not picking him up.

Case is bullshit - feel sorry for the pub.

**98tls** · 19th January 2009, 19:51

Originally Posted by Croftersking

What a damm joke. I own a pub and man we try to stop as many as we can but people still want to drive home. Personal responsability has to come into it.

Xactly,maybe add a $1 a jug for babysitting.