Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tonchi
OK, then looking at the event in a purely objective fashion, it was the man's PARENTS who are to blame. ... None of those boys will pay anything, THEIR PARENTS, who worship them, will pony up for the disasters caused by THEIR Little Emperors.
|
Ok, sure, if the guy was drinking excessively by his own will, you could argue this way. If this were the case, his friends might have said, "hey, we tried to stop him, but he snuck off in the other room and kept pounding shots." THen you *might* be able to say it was the parents' fault for not teaching him about the dangers of overconsuming alcohol.
But the ruling suggests the friends were in fact coercing him to continue drinking. If he was three sheets to the wind and ready to pass out but his friends kept insisting he drink, they were exerting pressure while he was impaired, i.e. unable to make good judgments. He himself was likely unsure of how much he had already had, as well as unaware of the consequences of consuming more. And when have you ever seen a drunk turn down another drink??
Laws aside, the friends also had a moral interest in protecting his well being. Regardless of knowing "how much he could handle," they should have stopped him from drinking when he began showing signs of extreme intoxication.
And whether he was drinking at someone's house or at a public bar makes no difference: both are considered as providing a venue for the consumption of alcohol. The property/business owner *can* be found liable for incidents resulting from behavior that occured on their property. This is why it's dangerous for parents to allow underagers to drink in their private homes - they're providing a venue AND breaking the law. Because a bar is a commercial business, laws make it easier to sue for liability. I know bars in NYC (unfortunately from personal experience) that won't hesitate to kick you out if you show the slightest sign of intoxication - rough-housing, laughing too loud, unable to count change.