DRAM SHOP AWARD:

Judge puts $1M settlement from Dram Shop suit into court registry

November 27, 2012 3:44 PM

By David Yates

A Beaumont judge has placed $1 million in settlement proceeds from a Dram Shop suit into the court registry while the parties sort out who gets what.

In February, the Southeast Texas Record reported that several area residents filed a petition to take depositions, believing a local business illegally sold alcohol to minors who later died in an automobile collision.

Court records show that the petition was re-filed as a lawsuit on March 16, with Jack Smith and Dawn Fluts as plaintiffs and Triangle Marketing and its representative Hussain Ali Habib as defendants.

On Oct. 3 Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, ordered that the suit settlement proceeds, $1 million, be placed into the court registry until a final determination of entitlement is made among the plaintiffs and lien holders, court papers say.

According to the original petition, on Sept. 17, 2011, The County Store allegedly sold minors a large quantity of alcohol, which was a proximate cause of their intoxication and the deadly car crash that followed.

In their suit, the plaintiffs allege the defendants illegally provided alcohol to the teens in violation of the law prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors.

In addition to exemplary damages, the plaintiffs were suing for their pecuniary loss and mental anguish.

They are represented by Beaumont attorney Clay Dugas.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

DRAM SHOP AWARD:

Eddie’s Place Lawsuit Awards Matthew Eastridge $1.7M After DUI Crash

Posted by Seth Horowitz on Nov 28th, 2012

In Charlotte, North Carolina, a tragic drunk driving accident critically injured a young couple and claimed the lives of their unborn child and the drunk driver. Now, over two years later, a jury in a civil suit has ruled that the restaurant that served the drunk driver was negligent and awarded the young couple $1.7 million.
The verdict not only proved costly to Eddie’s Place, the restaurant that was sued, but shines a spotlight on a set of laws created to prevent restaurants and bars from serving alcohol to patrons already intoxicated. It also has set a precedent for future lawsuits that may occur in other states.

On October 29th, 2010, Matt Eastridge and his six-month pregnant wife, Meredith, were driving home when a drunk driver slammed into their Toyota RAV4. Police say the driver, David Huffman, had a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) that was roughly three times the legal limit and was driving faster than 100 mph when he crashed into the Eastridge’s vehicle. The 25-year-old driver had just left Eddie’s Place Restaurant and Bar in south Charlotte and was reported to have been served at least 10 drinks.

Recently, the young couple had won a civil suit filed against Eddie’s Place and the jury awarded them $1.7 million as they felt the restaurant was careless in serving alcohol to someone it knew or should have suspected was drunk.
The 32-year-old Matt Eastridge said he was “disgusted” upon learning that Huffman was served “the equivalent of 15 drinks in two hours.” He also said that he and his wife, also 32, had just finished using an ATM and was accelerating in their vehicle. “Then we got smashed,” he says. “We saw just enough to say, ‘What’s that guy doing?’ By the time we said this, it was over.”

Both ended up in a hospital for over a month where Meredith lost 40% of her blood and the baby. They also required lengthy therapy and had extensive surgeries. Matt said, “Mentally, it was very difficult. Obviously, it was very challenging physically.”
The attorney for Eddie’s Place, Rick Pinto, admitted that Huffman was given 10 drinks over a two-hour and 10-minute period. However, employees at the restaurant made an arrangement to get him a ride with another customer who lived in the same apartment complex. He said, “He accepted it and then went and drove his own car anyway.”

According to Pinto, an investigation by the Mecklenburg County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board said the restaurant stopped serving Huffman any alcohol after they noticed he was “visibly intoxicated,” and that they strive to comply with laws that state not to serve patrons who are intoxicated or underage. Pinto added, “They’ve never, ever been cited for an alcohol-related violation, and they’ve been in business for 15 years.”
The issue is that there is a different standard for criminal liability then there is for legal liability. The Eastridge’s focused their lawsuit under North Carolina’s law which establishes the liability of businesses that serve alcohol to obviously drunk or underage people who end up causing injury or death to others in alcohol-related accidents.

Laws that are similar, known as dram shop laws, are on the books in some form in every state but seven.  Dram shop or dramshop is a legal term in the United States that refers to a tavern, a bar or the like where alcoholic beverages are sold.  Dram shop liability refers to the governing law that establishes the liability of liquor stores, taverns and commercial establishments that serve alcoholic beverages.
The laws establish the liability these places have after selling alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons or minors that then cause injury or death to third-parties (those not having a relationship to the bar) as a result of alcohol-related car crashes and other accidents.
Unfortunately, the laws widely vary and accordingly to Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), 31 states end up treating individual hosts who give alcohol to clearly drunk individuals with liability similar to restaurants and bars.

There are various limits to these laws in 24 states. The Eastridges’ attorney, Charles Monnett, feels that, “The national ramifications of this problem are enormous. In our research, we found that in 2010, there were about 10,000 drunk driving deaths in the U.S. Fifty percent of those folks were coming directly from a bar or restaurant where they were over-served.”
The other side looks differently at dram shop laws as they do not favor them. There is a common criticism of these laws in that it takes away any personal responsibility, which includes certain times that the drunk driver is allowed to file a lawsuit. Pinto also points out some laws, like North Carolina’s, is not clear and has too many grey areas. “It would be helpful in our state if the law was more clear. The law is, you can’t serve someone who is visibly intoxicated when you have reason to believe they are going to drive. It’s not our duty to make sure no one ever leaves a restaurant with more than .08 alcohol in their system. That’s not what the law is. But that may be what this jury decided.”

Dram Shop Laws have both supporters and non-supporters that feel there side is the right one. President Jan Withers of MADD feels that the laws help to cut down on excessive and illegal consumption, reduce drunken driving crashes and increase to the public the impact of over-serving to patrons. She says, “Dram shop laws are important because they encourage restaurants and bars to be responsible in serving alcohol. Establishments need to take this responsibility seriously. These laws also help provide justice for victims of drunk driving who are faced with the tremendous financial burden that follows a death or serious injury.”
Dram Shop Law expert Richard Smith, a partner with the Washington, D.C., law firm Wiley Rein, feels that the .08 blood-alcohol-content standard that is used in criminal cases “is meaningless in civil liability.” He says, “In most states, the patron has to be ‘visibly intoxicated’ at the time of service. The critical moment is when the bartender looks at a person and makes an evaluation. It really is the moment of truth. If you are a bar or restaurant, you need to know what the law is in your state. And most importantly, you need to train your servers and bartenders about the law in your state.”

Considering that the laws vary from state-to-state, dram shop laws will be out more in the public eye as more cases come to fruition. The recent lawsuit will intensify the debate, now that there has been established a legal precedent. As for the Eastridges, they now have a 6-month-old daughter named Sloane. Yet, they continue to be haunted by the events that occurred on that night in October over two years ago. According to Matt, “My wife and I would trade any dollar amount to have this not happen, and still have our son.”

Charlotte couple gets $1.7M from bar after DUI death

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

DRAM SHOP AWARD:

Family of Brain-Injured Child Settles Lawsuit against a Texas Applebee’s

Posted by Mark Bello
June 04, 2012 9:22 AM

In 2009, a two-year-old child suffered extensive brain damage after the car he was riding in was struck by a repeatedly convicted drunk driver. The toddler was strapped in his car seat when a pick-up truck slammed into the back of his family’s vehicle while waiting at a red light. The intoxicated driver had a blood alcohol level three times the legal limit. The child requires round-the-clock care; doctors said 80% of his brain has been destroyed he will never be able to stand, sit, walk, or speak. The child’s parents filed a lawsuit against the drunk driver and a local Applebee’s seeking $10 million to cover the child’s physical needs, past and future medical expenses, emotional and mental anguish, as well as their loss of earnings to care for their son. Three years later, the couple reached an undisclosed settlement.

Obviously, the impaired driver should be held responsible, but what about Applebee’s? Most states, including Texas, have Dram Shop Laws that hold commercial establishments accountable for injuries that result when they serve a customer that is obviously intoxicated to the point that the drunk person presents a clear danger to themselves and others. In order for a cause of action under the Texas Dram Shop Act to be successful, a plaintiff must show proof that, at the time the alcohol was served, the individual who later caused harm was obviously intoxicated to the point that he or she presented a clear danger.

Under the Dram Shop Act, a vast majority of states allow victims of drunk driving accidents (or their families) to hold restaurants and bars accountable for serious injuries or death caused by an intoxicated patron if the establishment knew, or should have known, the customer was intoxicated — a fuzzy test in application. These laws exist to ensure the public safety by making sure that alcohol-serving establishments are liable in their involvement with customers and their sale of alcohol. When these businesses are driven by profits and neglect to oversee their patron’s alcohol consumption, they can be held partially responsible for the negligence of the patron’s drunk driving accident. In Texas, a patron must be so obviously intoxicated that he presents a clear danger to himself and others. This case is an excellent example of this application of the law; the plaintiff showed proof via receipts that Applebee’s served this guy over 20 drinks in less than two hours (and let him walk out, probably to get into his car and drive away). The patron should have been visibly intoxicated; there should have been no “fuzziness” about his condition when he left Applebee’s.

The couple is still fighting to hold the drunk driver responsible for his actions; he still has not gone on trial. Although he has numerous prior convictions and charges of driving under the influence, his past convictions are not admissible due to a technicality: the convictions are from four other states and the records have been kept out of Texas courts. The couple’s pleas have not gone completely unheard; the state passed the Abdallah Khader Act (named after this innocent little boy) which doubles the amount of time that an alleged drunk driver can spend in prison for intoxication assault cases to 20 years and the amount of time someone with the blood alcohol content (BAC) of .15 or higher can spend in jail to one year.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

DRAM SHOP AWARD:

Simon Law Firm Settles Dramshop Suit for Half a Million

Atlanta, GA (PRWEB) June 05, 2012
The death of University of Georgia college student Eddie Ko has been rectified by the Simon Law Firm, headed by Christopher Simon, a local car accident attorney. Atlanta citizens can also get peace of mind knowing that an irresponsible and dangerous local business has been shut down.
In 2010, Ko was killed in a drunk driving accident. Two drivers left a bar in Duluth, GA in separate vehicles. Unable to properly operate their vehicles after drinking to excess, they lost control and struck each other, and then crashed into 23 year-old Eddie Ko’s vehicle. The accident took the lives of Ko and another passenger, which was reported by CBS Atlanta. The drivers, Soon Kwon and Gho H. Lee, faced criminal charges, including vehicular manslaughter. As a wrongful death attorney, Atlanta representative Mr. Simon was able to secure policy limits from the insurance companies in the case of JEAN CHOI, as Surviving Mother of EDDIE H. KO (Deceased) versus SOON M. KWON, IN J. KWON, GHO H. LEE, TONY KA, and AKO CORPORATION, in the state court of Gwinnett County, State of Georgia Civil Action File No. 11C-04348-1.

In support of the family of Ko and the community at large, Christopher Simon took action in the same claim (Civil Action File No. 11C-04348-1) against the bar (parent company AKO Corporation) that served the alcohol. In Georgia, Dramshop Act - Civil Code § 51-1-40(b) - holds the bar legally responsible for injuries and deaths when they serve a visibly drunk customer and they are aware that he or she is driving that evening. During the litigation, the firm deposed witnesses who were drinking with the drunk drivers that night and obtained cell phone photos showing how intoxicated they were. The bar was found guilty of serving six heavily intoxicated individuals up to 15 rounds of drinks and staying open past closing to continue serving. A half a million dollars was awarded to Ko’s family in the wrongful death suit.

"Knowing that the bar will be uninsurable and likely go out of business as a result is a measure of justice for the loss of Eddie's life,” says Mr. Simon. “It also helps to protect other innocent drivers in Atlanta. It won't bring him back, but we can keep it from happening again."
The public is often not aware of how much good trial lawyers do by shutting down dangerous businesses. Mr. Simon of the Simon Law Firm has been recognized as a leader in his field in Atlanta. He was selected by Super Lawyers Magazine as a Rising Star for 2009, 2010 and 2011 and as a Super Lawyer in 2012. He was also listed on the "Legal Elite" list by Georgia Trend magazine in 2010.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

DRAM SHOP SUIT:

Family of Ravenel Bridge crash victim suing Husk restaurant

Posted by Paul Bowers on Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM

The family of a man who died in a Dec. 17 car crash on the Arthur Ravenel Jr. Bridge is suing the owners of the award-winning downtown restaurant Husk, alleging that they allowed an employee to drink to excess before getting on the road that night.

Quentin Gregory Miller, a 32-year-old Mt. Pleasant resident, died around 4 a.m. that Saturday morning after a car driven by Husk Assistant Manager Adam Joseph Burnell crashed into the rear of Miller's vehicle, causing both cars to careen out of control. According to the lawsuit, Miller suffered blunt force trauma in the initial collision and then died an excruciating death when he was trapped inside as flames engulfed his vehicle. Burnell was arrested and charged with felony DUI, and he was released on a $52,349 surety bond Dec. 18.

Terry Miller, Quentin Miller's father and the representative of his estate, filed a lawsuit last Friday against The Neighborhood Dining Group, the company that owns Husk as well as Queen Anne's Revenge and McCrady's. In the suit, he alleges that the company allowed Burnell to drink to excess and then drive away from the restaurant. He is suing for wrongful death and survival actions; negligent hiring, retention, and supervision; negligence per se; and dram shop negligence (specifically referring to laws that hold bars liable for drunken drivers leaving their premises). He has demanded a jury trial.

One of the accusations in the lawsuit is that Neighborhood Dining Group "failed to have a policy, or failed to enforce Defendant's policy, that no agents, servants, employees or managers, such as Adam Joseph Burnell, would be allowed to remain at Husk after dinner service and after their normal shift for the purpose of consuming alcohol."

Husk and its parent company have not yet issued a response to the lawsuit, but the company publicist plans to send out an official comment later today.

The December car crash made an emotional impact on Charleston's community of food and beverage workers, as many restaurant employees knew either one of the parties involved or both. Quentin Miller worked as a bartender at Henry's downtown and on Seabrook Island.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

DRAM SHOP AWARD:

The family of a man killed by a drunk driver is suing Cisero's Nightclub and Ristorante for over-serving alcohol to a customer.

Under Utah's dram shop laws, the family of Kamas resident Jose Pineda, 23, is alleging the employees' at the Park City restaurant and nightclub gave alcohol to an inebriated patron who later crashed his car, killing himself and Pineda.

According to Third District Court documents, on February 12, 2011, Orem resident Rick Ryan Hill, 35, had drinks at Cisero's before operating a vehicle. While driving eastbound on State Road 248 in Park City, Hill crossed the median into oncoming traffic and struck Pineda who was traveling westbound. Both men died at the scene. Hill had multiple previous driving-while-intoxicated convictions and his vehicle was required to be equipped with an interlock device.

Michael Katz, the lawyer for Pineda's estate, said that Hill had been drinking at Cisero's "all day" prior to the 8:30 p.m. accident and the servers there should have cut him off and not allowed him to drive.

"Under Utah's dram shop laws, Cisero's is strictly liable for giving beverages to someone and then having them be in an accident," Katz said. "He had been drinking there for some time and they should have known he was consuming too much."

Katz said Pineda left behind a small child, mother and brother and the settlement money will go to support them.

"We are suing Cisero's for $500,000, the maximum allowed under Utah law," he said. "They are required to have dram shop insurance and we will probably settle out of court. These kinds of cases never go to court because the clubs are not anxious to have them tried. Jurors don't like the idea of restaurants over-serving patrons."

Cisero's owner Steve McComb said his workers did absolutely nothing wrong and that Hill should not have been in a bar in the first place.

"We barely served Mr. Hill anything," McComb said. "Right after the accident, the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and Utah Highway Patrol did its investigation and found we had done nothing wrong. At the time, we determined we had served him a beer and a shot I think. That was it. He could have had alcohol in his truck or a six pack outside in the snow, that happens and we cannot control it."

McComb added that this is the first time an incident like this has happened in his 30 years of working in the nightclub business and that all of his employees are certified to stop serving someone when they appear intoxicated.

"We have a standing policy that any employee who over-serves someone is fired and in this incident our employees did nothing wrong. This man obviously had a problem and there was no way for us to know this," he said.

As of Thursday, McComb had not been served with the lawsuit. Katz said they filed the lawsuit sooner than they would have liked because the statue of limitations was running out. Katz said they are also filing a lawsuit against Hill's estate.

Utah's dram shop laws

Under Utah's dram shop statute, bars and restaurants can be considered liable for injuries to any third person resulting from intoxication if they served alcohol to an intoxicated person, or to the point of intoxication or impairment. An employer is liable for the actions of their employees. The establishment cannot be sued for more than $500,000 per person or $1,000,000 per incident and must have dram shop insurance. Dram shop is a legal term referring to a place where alcohol is served.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

DRAM SHOP AWARD:

Dram shop suit in connection with 2010 DWI fatalities settles

The family of Eddie McPayne settled a dram shop case with Hoot County saloon, holding the establishment responsible for over-serving alcohol on the night of the deadly accident.

By STEFANIE THOMAS

A Harris County civil complaint accusing Hoot County Saloon and one of its bartenders of serving crash victims Eddie McPayne, 23, of Huffman - and, by extension, Bill Gonzales, 23, of Atascocita - with too much alcohol on the night of a deadly accident in April 2011 never made it to trial. On Jan. 13, the case settled, and both Hoot County Saloon and then 21-year-old bartender Courtney Sitton agreed to compensate the parents of Eddie McPayne, who filed suit last May, with an undisclosed amount of money for the loss of their loved one.

“Given the facts and circumstances of the case we’re satisfied,” said McPayne family attorney, Jim Rensimer, saying the details of the settlement were confidential. “The family is relieved not to have to relive the accident during trial, not having to go through that.”

Rensimer said through disposition of the bartender on duty on the fateful night of April 27, 2010, along with surveillance footage from Hoot County Saloon in Humble, where McPayne and Eddie Gonzales had been drinking prior to wrecking the vehicle they were in on FM 1960 in Atascocita, the plaintiffs learned that Courtney Sitton had served the two men an excessive number of drinks.

“Sitton gave a signed statement to TABC that said they had two pitchers of beer and two shots each. The surveillance tape showed McPayne and Gonzales going into the bar at 1:10 a.m., and they left at 2:10 a.m.” Rensimer said. “She did serve them two pitchers of beer, but they had more than two shots. From 1:10 a.m. to 1:35 a.m., she served them one pitcher of beer. From 1:35 a.m. to when they left at 2:10 a.m., she served them a second pitcher of beer. She also served McPayne six shots, and she served Gonzales nine shots – all within 20 minutes.”

Rensimer said it is impossible for Sitton to claim that she was distracted by other customers because security footage from inside and outside the establishment showed that Payne and Gonzales were the only patrons in the bar at the time.

According to autopsy reports provided by the Harris County Institute of Forensic Science, McPayne showed a blood alcohol content of 0.08, and Gonzales, 0.22. The toxicology reports also indicated that THC, a substance found in marijuana, was present in the blood of both men.

Further investigation by the Harris County Sheriff’s Office also revealed that McPayne was indeed the driver of Gonzales’ vehicle, a long-standing contention by Gonzales’ father who fervently denied initial HCSO reports that his son had been behind the wheel when the accident occurred and requested a review of the original findings.

The McPayne family filed the wrongful death suit against Hoot County Saloon and Sitton about a month after the accident. The Gonzales family did not participate in the litigation. Rensimer said the McPayne family was lucky in its misfortune: Hoot County Saloon had liquor liability insurance and was able to provide a satisfactory settlement to ease the family’s financial burden. Most families in dram shop cases, the attorney said, are not as fortunate.

SHARED RESPONSIBILITY

Rensimer, who has worked numerous dram shop cases involving the over-serving of alcohol by restaurants and bars, says the playing field in civil court is largely in favor of the liquor industry and the restaurateurs.

“A lot of people aren’t aware of this, but bars and restaurants are not required to carry liquor liability insurance. We were very fortunate that this bar did,” Rensimer said. “I think it’s hypocritical, a double standard, that you and I are required by law to carry car insurance, and I don’t understand for the life of me why bars aren’t required to carry liquor liability insurance. We all know that people these days go to bars in cars, and they go there for one reason – which is to drink. I’m not at all saying that drunk drivers shouldn’t be held accountable for drinking and driving. But why aren’t the bars held accountable for over-serving?”

According to Rensimer, the families of victims who were served more than their share of alcohol and subsequently perish or are injured in drunk driving accidents have little recourse these days, because less and less lawyers are willing to take on their cases.

A claim under the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Statute Chapter 2, under which Rensimer also brought the McPayne case, is, for one thing, notoriously hard to prove, the attorney says.

“The restaurant, hotel and bar industry – the big alcohol sellers – throw money at the lobbyists in Austin, and they wrote the half page statute. They have made it so hard to prove a case against the bars, they are difficult cases to recover on,” Rensimer explained. “You have to prove obvious intoxication at the time of service. The bartenders are not required to count drinks. So even though a person may be legally intoxicated, but looks and acts fine, the bar will not be held liable. The way the statute was written, that’s incredibly hard to work with.”

Then, even when a plaintiff brings an airtight case, Rensimer said the likelihood of recovering damages is slim because there just aren’t any funds to recover. Fighting for compensation through a drunk driver’s standard car insurance may yield a few thousand dollars, he said, but the bars who do not carry liquor liability insurance – and more than 50 percent of all bars, according to Rensimer, do not – get away unscathed.

“More often than not, the plaintiffs go without compensation. There is a high percentage of cases I won’t even take because of that problem,” he said. “When I take a case on, often the families don’t have the money to pay a lawyer. So I get paid a contingent fee – I won’t make any money unless I collect money. If I don’t collect, I work for free. But people aren’t drinking less, and people aren’t driving less. People are getting killed by drunk drivers like they always have, but most lawyers are no longer willing to take the chance of working with a statute that’s really hard to prove, and then less than half of the bars carry insurance even if you do prove the case. It’s a vicious cycle. Less lawsuits are being filed, so that means that bars who over-serve somebody go scot free. There is no fear of prosecution.”

A mandate for bars and restaurants to carry liquor liability insurance would go a long way in rectifying the problem and finding a modicum of justice for the families whose loved ones died in DWI related accidents caused in part by over-serving at establishments, Rensimer believes. As it is, Rensimer explains, liquor liability insurance is sold as an option, a separate rider on a commercial insurance policy that usually only covers accidents like slip-and-falls. Liquor liability insurance would require a separate premium, based on the alcohol volume sold at any one establishment.

“I don’t hold it against bars to serve alcohol – that’s a legal business. But if they over-serve and somebody dies because of it, they ought to pay,” he said. “I don’t say for a minute that the driver’s not at fault, but let’s talk about joint responsibility. Why shouldn’t they both be required to carry insurance? And if they’re both responsible, they should both pony up the money.”

Rensimer said McPayne paid the ultimate price for his choices: he died, and also shares responsibility in the death of his friend, Bill Gonzales.

“We are all responsible for ourselves, and people should decide when they’ve had enough. But it’s not shared responsibility the way the system is set up. it’s skewed against the little guy and it’s skewed in favor of the businesses who then put some of their money into the hands of politicians to make sure the law is in their favor.”

Rensimer encourages area residents to write to their state representatives and demand a requirement for alcohol-selling establishments to carry liquor liability insurance.

“Why is it that the people who make money off the alcohol are not required to carry liquor liability insurance? Why can’t we make sure that the families who lose a loved one are taken care of financially, as a minimum?” he questions. “The alcohol providers are getting a big advantage, and that’s just not fair.”

The Observer reached out to Congressman Ted Poe and Hoot County Saloon attorney William Briscoe for comment on this story. Neither responded by deadline.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811
© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2012

Defense Attorneys win dram shop case because their client had proper safe guards in place and a good system of care for alcohol service. This verdict specifically exemplifies the need for good alcohol servicng policies and procedures. If they DID'T have this in place, then they most likely would have suffered $5,000,000.00 in damages (see red below).

DRAM SHOP NON-AWARD:

Hartline Dacus Attorneys Win Defense Verdict for Adult Entertainment Company

This jury trial ended in victory for the Defendant after attorneys of the firm successfully defended a publicly traded adult entertainment establishment in a case involving an automobile-pedestrian accident that resulted in the death of a 43 year-old man.

Dallas, TX (PRWEB) June 30, 2011

Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP today announced a jury trial victory after attorneys Darrell Barger, Brian Rawson and Stephanie Roark successfully defended their client in a two week Dram Shop liability trial in Harris County, Texas. The client is a publicly traded adult entertainment establishment with nightclubs in major markets across the U.S. According to court documents, the case involved an automobile-pedestrian accident that resulted in the death of a 43 year-old man in 2007. The driver of the vehicle was an adult entertainer, who was driving home from work at the defendant’s nightclub when the accident occurred. She had a blood-alcohol level almost four times the legal limit, and eventually pled guilty to felony intoxication manslaughter. Relatives of the victim filed suit against the nightclub, alleging the defendant was negligent in continuing to serve alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, and then allowing her to drive home from the defendant’s establishment.

“While we certainly feel a great deal of sympathy for the family of the victim in this tragic accident, we were confident that our client had not been negligent in this situation. We knew we needed to mount a strong defense to prove that the company played no part in the criminal actions of this independent contractor,” said Darrell Barger, a partner in the Corpus Christi office of Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP.  The jury heard testimony from a variety of expert witnesses and was presented with a reconstruction of the accident. The plaintiff’s counsel claimed the victim experienced unimaginable conscious pain and suffering when he was struck by the entertainer’s vehicle and asked the jury to award $5 million plus punitive damages to the family of the victim.

Defense counsel argued that their client had safeguards in place to prevent serving alcohol to someone obviously intoxicated, as well as to prevent their patrons from driving under the influence of alcohol. The defense also brought in expert witness to establish that alcohol played no role in the accident. After hearing testimony from both sides, the Harris County jury of seven men and five women deliberated and returned a verdict for the defense on June 15, 2011.

SOURCE: Hartline Dacus Barger Dreyer LLP

Cause Number: 2009-07180
Court: 334th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010

22-year-old held in man's death - Police say he ran down victim in Mesa bar's parking lot after fight

by Allison Oswalt - Mar. 18, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic

A 22-year-old man accused of running down and killing a Mesa man near Southern Avenue and Dobson Road was arrested Wednesday on charges of second-degree murder, police said.

The victim, who has been identified as 29-year-old Antoine Beaty of Mesa, was pronounced dead at a hospital on Wednesday.

Mesa police arrested Derrick M. Antone, who admitted that he had not planned on running the victim over but only "hit him to see him fly out of the way."

The Wednesday incident at Uncle Monkey's bar in Mesa began around 2:45 a.m. as Antone was leaving the bar with several friends, police said.

Beaty asked Antone for a ride home from the bar, and Antone agreed because one of Antone's female friends wanted to "hook up" with Beaty, police said.

Beaty began arguing with one of the women and started assaulting her and another woman in the vehicle, police said.

After Antone and Beaty got out of the van and started to fight in the parking lot, the two women pulled out lug wrenches and began hitting the victim, police said.

Beaty responded by throwing rocks at the two women and then ran away, police said.

Police said Antone and the two women got back into the van with the intent to hit Beaty.

Antone told police that he did not want to hurt Beaty seriously but that he estimated he had accelerated to 35 mph while chasing him.

Police said that Antone said he ran over a curb and lost control of the vehicle, hitting a pole.

He told police he was unaware he had hit Beaty, police said.

Beaty was taken to the hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Police said that video surveillance shows the van driving in deliberate circles after hitting the curb and does not appear to be "out of control."

Antone was booked on charges of second-degree murder, failure to stop at an accident involving a death and extreme DUI.

Michael Zenner - CEO      
Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc.
eyespyspotter.com
bartheft.com  (blog)
Hospitality Checkpoint PLLC
PI Lic. 1597616
hospitalitycheckpoint.com
liquorassessment.com
PO BOX 995 Gilbert AZ 85299
Office: 480-777-7056
Toll Free: 800-880-0811

© Eye Spy Spotter Services Inc. 2010