DUI

Moderator: Jim DeVito

Jeff Endress
Posts: 858
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:13 am
Location: Lakewood

Postby Jeff Endress » Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:20 pm

Phil

The statute speaks of "noticably intoxicated". I would think that any barkeep could tell when a patron is "noticably intoxicated". It also requires that the permit holder sold to the person who was "noticably intoxicated".

The intoxicated person will always bear primary responsibilty for their actions. The statute does nothing to dillute that. It does, however, give another avenue of compensation for injury or death to innocent third parties when the drunk is also uncollectable, uninsured or underinsured.

(Per the Ohio Revised Code) A person has a cause of action against a permit holder or an employee of a permit holder for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person


As between the injured, innocent soccermom and the establishment that served the alcohol, if that provides an avenue of redress, otherwise unavailable, it's a good thing.
But your analysis is flawed. The overserved drunk would have no right of recovery against the bar that served him, just as you have none against Mickey Dee's.

Jeff


To wander this country and this world looking for the best barbecue â€â€

Return to “2007 Lakewood Mayoral Election”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests