Giants Stadium: Drunk Driving Lawsuit

[Section 227, Row 5]

In this morning's Star-Ledger, in the Sports Section at the bottom of page 65, is an advertisement by a lawfirm out of Roseland, NJ. The ad reads:

ATTENTION:

GIANTS/JETS FANS

Have you seen drunk fans served alcohol at the stadium?

If so, we need your help in a lawsuit in which a two year old girl was paralyzed by a drunk driver after he left the stadium.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

I'm sure there will be a lot of opinions on this...

[20&out]

They do cut it off at halftime.

[Namath2Kolber]

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

I'm sure there will be a lot of opinions on this...

Nothing against you personally Section 227, but this mentality really annoys me. "I had a lot of fun when I was young but, now that I'm older, I want to spoil that fun for today's younger people."

Either way, I will use my limited law school knowledge to figure this out. First of all, if the little girl was at the game with a guardian, the suit will fail because there is a contract on every ticket where the team basically makes you waive any suit. Then there's the issue of cause. You can sue a bartender who serves a really drunk person who then goes out and runs someone over. But you have to be able to prove all this. You have to prove that this specific driver was showing visible signs of being too drunk and you also have to show he didn't have any additional drinks that he snuck in or in the parking lot after the game. In short, these cases don't succeed often but, in the interests of avoiding bad press, people could always get a nice settlement.

[Jetzz]

They do cut it off at halftime.

Cutting it off at halftime is not much good if people have been hitting it hard before the game.

While I am a big fan of justice being done I am not sure that going after Giants stadium is the right thing honestly. People choose to drink and then they choose to drive. If serving beer is so evil, then why the hell is it available at all in that case? Why not sue the gov't for not banning it and making it illegal? The same can be said of tobacco companies as well, but that is a topic for a different thread. Obviously money is the big reason why it is legal. Therefore I would place personal responsibility above that of those serving.

[baamf]

Either way, I will use my limited law school knowledge to figure this out. First of all, if the little girl was at the game with a guardian, the suit will fail because there is a contract on every ticket where the team basically makes you waive any suit. Then there's the issue of cause. You can sue a bartender who serves a really drunk person who then goes out and runs someone over. But you have to be able to prove all this. You have to prove that this specific driver was showing visible signs of being too drunk and you also have to show he didn't have any additional drinks that he snuck in or in the parking lot after the game. In short, these cases don't succeed often but, in the interests of avoiding bad press, people could always get a nice settlement.

Actually the girl wasn't at the game. A drunk Giants fan ran into her families car while returning home from the game. I thought it was all resolved already, but I guess not....

---edit---

according to this they already paid out 60 million, not sure what this new lawsuit is.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[Section 227, Row 5]

Nothing against you personally Section 227, but this mentality really annoys me. "I had a lot of fun when I was young but, now that I'm older, I want to spoil that fun for today's younger people."

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

We all did a lot of things decades ago that were accepted and done in the context of that day, but that didn't make it right. There's no place in today's world for drunk driving, period. Get loaded, yes. Drive, yes. But don't f*cking drink and drive.

Now, as far as the lawsuit, I [personally don't think the personnel at Giants stadium are qualified to judge whether or not a person has had too much. I also think it's easy to "get around" any such policy that might subsequently be put in place that makes the server responsible. So, the question is, how do you stop drunk fans from driving out of the parking lot?

I don't know, probably more state police presence, for one.

[InChadWeTrust]

Man that's a damn shame. That's why no matter where I am, I always have a friend with me that would bite the bullet and play DD for the night.

[xjets2002x]

It's an unfortunate situation, but it's what comes with having a stadium out in the middle of nowhere that you have to drive to.

A free society is going to have its share of horrific accidents, but that's no reason to legislate ourselves into a nanny state.

This is about an opportunistic law firm trying to make a buck and a headline. I think that's just as sickening as what happened to this poor little girl.

More state police presence will probably stop people from going to games period. A DWI arrest with flashing lights would probably make congestion even more obscene than it is leaving the stadium.

Probably the best idea would be to give all fans of legal drinking age some kind of drink ticket when they entered the stadium. Every time those fans went to get a beer the cashier could mark their ticket. Ticket would be limited to maybe three or four drinks per holder. I don't think this would be much more difficult than it would be to get a program. Maybe a swipe card would be easier?

-X-

[JetsFan2004]

"I had a lot of fun when I was young but, now that I'm older, I want to spoil that fun for today's younger people."

How does enforcing a rule that bartenders not serve alcohol to intoxicated fans spoil fun for young people?

[Br4dw4y5ux]

Drinking and driving should be punished by summary execution when the person is pulled over.

I've lost 2 close friends and an entire carfull of relatives to drunk drivers.

BTW, for those thinking I'm being facetious or humorous in the above I'm not. I'd pull the trigger myself on a drunk driver who killed somebody in his reckless oblivion and lack of disregard for others and I'd do it with a clean conscience.

[WhiteShoeWillis]

This is an awful thing that happened but I totally disagree that the owners of the stadium should be held responsible. People need to be held accountable for their own actions - it's a shame that we've gotten so far away from this as a society. The stadium should be held responsible for only serving people of legal age. It is not there job to determine whether or not someone is going to be irresponsible when they leave the stadium. Obviously this is all my opinion.

[Gator]

Drinking and driving should be punished by summary execution when the person is pulled over.

I've lost 2 close friends and an entire carfull of relatives to drunk drivers.

BTW, for those thinking I'm being facetious or humorous in the above I'm not. I'd pull the trigger myself on a drunk driver who killed somebody in his reckless oblivion and lack of disregard for others and I'd do it with a clean conscience.


I'm sorry about your friends and relatives.

You just said two different things. Do you want to kill drunk drivers that kill people, or just kill ALL drunk drivers when it is determined they are drunk. The Cardinals would be looking for a manager under your plan.

[Section 227, Row 5]

More state police presence will probably stop people from going to games period. A DWI arrest with flashing lights would probably make congestion even more obscene than it is leaving the stadium.

I don't know if more state police presence will stop people from going to games, but I think not. They're already putting up with escalated ticket prices and traffic congestion and it doesn't prevent the stadium from packing them in and selling out every seat.

As far as flashing lights and visible DWI arrests, bring it on. I cannot tell you the last time I saw a state trooper pulling over someone and doing a DWI on them and I am talking about 20+ years. There seems to be some kind of "unwritten rule" that state troopers don't "harass" Jets/Giants fans when they leave the stadium. I certainly hope this isn't rue, but it seems that way. I for one wouldn't be upset at seeing a few "demonstrational" DWI arrests alongside Rte 3 and the TNPK, if for no other reason than to put drunks on notice that there's a crackdown in progress.

[ScotsJet]

there is a contract on every ticket where the team basically makes you waive any suit.

I don't know about your laws, but in the UK that would be unenforcable - for starters the bargain is concluded when the ticket is handed over and you can't create new terms thereafter, secondly if it were construed as included it would fall on account of the inequal bargaining position and/or unfair contract terms.

[King Koopa]

DWI needs to have more seious consequences........1st time should be like loss of license for 3 years, jail for a few months, and the fines should be a lot more.....You can't really blame the meadowlands because people are getting trashed at games everywhere no matter what, and the idiots are the ones that choose to drive and ruin it

[Br4dw4y5ux]

I'm sorry about your friends and relatives.

You just said two different things. Do you want to kill drunk drivers that kill people, or just kill ALL drunk drivers when it is determined they are drunk. The Cardinals would be looking for a manager under your plan.

You cannot predict which drunk driver you pull over is going to kill somebody two months down the road when he goes out and has some "fun" again.

Shoot em all and let god sort em out.

I'd describe how some of the people I loved died but it would create an image for you that would probably stay with you for the rest of your life and as angry as I can get about this issue I'm not going to do that to you.

16,000 people a year are killed in accidents involving a drunk driver. 10% of the drunk drivers involved in these fatalities have at least one DWI conviction and nearly a quarter have been cited for DUI or DWI previously. This is a predictable killer and the killer is not alcohol, it's the people who choose to drink and drive.

As to the main issue, I think everybody who walks up to an alcohol serving venue in Giants stadium should have to blow into a tube and if the breathalyzer says they are approaching intoxication they should not be served.

[Gator]

You cannot predict which drunk driver you pull over is going to kill somebody two months down the road when he goes out and has some "fun" again.

Shoot em all and let god sort em out.

I'd describe how some of the people I loved died but it would create an image for you that would probably stay with you for the rest of your life and as angry as I can get about this issue I'm not going to do that to you.


I'm not diminishing your pain in any way....but it's a stupid plan. Lets say your kid was driving down the road one day and gets pulled over and executed because he blew a 1.1, then they find out the breathalizer malfunctioned.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

I'm not diminishing your pain in any way....but it's a stupid plan. Lets say your kid was driving down the road one day and gets pulled over and executed because he blew a 1.1, then they find out the breathalizer malfunctioned.

Fine, build in an arrest and analysis system that guarantees due process before the execution.

Within 6 months of doing this the incidence of drunk driving would be down 90% across America.

[KOZ]

The sad part about crashes involving drunks is that 99% of the time, they're the ones surviving, and people like the little girl mentioned above perish.

If the drunks were the only ones dying, maybe sooner or later that whole sub-species would exterminate itself. Eh, one can only hope, right?

[Section 227, Row 5]

You cannot predict which drunk driver you pull over is going to kill somebody two months down the road when he goes out and has some "fun" again.

Shoot em all and let god sort em out.

I'd describe how some of the people I loved died but it would create an image for you that would probably stay with you for the rest of your life and as angry as I can get about this issue I'm not going to do that to you.

Sorry this thread has brought this back for you, bud. The topic certainly generates interest though, and that's good. I was drunk as a f*cking skunk one night in 1986, coming back from partying at a place called Whirlitzer's out in Piscataway. I ran into a DWI checkpoint and I knew they had me... couldn't run around. The cops knew they had me too when they asked me a few questions and I slurred my words, but miraculously (and this happened back then because the law was still "young") they let me go.

Well, I learned my lesson after that, big time. And since I had custody of my kids, I really gave it some thought and I just don't drive and drink anymore, period. Do I drink? Hell yeah... let's party man. And do I drive? Hell yeah. But I just don't drink and drive at the same time. It's really not that hard to comprehend or get used to.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

Sorry this thread has brought this back for you, bud. The topic certainly generates interest though, and that's good. I was drunk as a f*cking skunk one night in 1986, coming back from partying at a place called Whirlitzer's out in Piscataway. I ran into a DWI checkpoint and I knew they had me... couldn't run around. The cops knew they had me too when they asked me a few questions and I slurred my words, but miraculously (and this happened back then because the law was still "young") they let me go.

Well, I learned my lesson after that, big time. And since I had custody of my kids, I really gave it some thought and I just don't drive and drink anymore, period. Do I drink? Hell yeah... let's party man. And do I drive? Hell yeah. But I just don't drink and drive at the same time. It's really not that hard to comprehend or get used to.

It's been a complete reversal from the 70's and 80's. The guy who killed my best friend in 1977 was let off with a warning by a judge, who it subsequently turned out had been arrested for DWI twice himself.

The guy who took out my mother's brother's family in 1994 wound up doing 2 years of a 2 to 10 sentence. I haven't bothered tracking him since he got out because I'm not interested in breaking the law. He had two previous arrests for DWI (90's were an enforcement drive) at the time he snuffed them all out and in my heart I know he's still drinking and driving.

[Section 227, Row 5]

As to the main issue, I think everybody who walks up to an alcohol serving venue in Giants stadium should have to blow into a tube and if the breathalyzer says they are approaching intoxication they should not be served.

Yeah but see, here I disagree. People will circumvent the rules by simply having a "buddy" buy for him. He brings back two beers to his seat and gives them to his already drunk friend.

I think the answer is to have more state police at the exit ramps. You know how slow the traffic is right there because you have to wait for the cars in front of you to move onto the exit lane, so you have cops right there, maybe even asking somebody who looks loaded to roll down their window so they can ask them if they're okay. If the bastard slurs his words and looks loaded, out of the car he comes for a test.

You do this enough at the beginning of the season and you'll make a hell of a lot of people think twice about dong it.

[Yisman]

this lawsuit should be thrown out of court. How could the stadium know who's drunk and who isn't? It isn't like a bar.
The responsibility should be on the idiot who got plastered and then got behind the wheel of his car.

The problem is, every game there are probably a bunch of people driving home drunk. The vast majority of fans drive to the games, and many of them drink at least a beer or two.

[Section 227, Row 5]

this lawsuit should be thrown out of court. How could the stadium know who's drunk and who isn't? It isn't like a bar.
The responsibility should be on the idiot who got plastered and then got behind the wheel of his car.

But lawyers look for the deepest pocket. The schlubb who was behind the wheel is probably a worthless degenerate with no assets. Then again... there's Giants Stadium. AHA! EUREKA!

[Yisman]

yeah, that's often the motivation for these lawsuits: go after the company with the money.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

Yeah but see, here I disagree. People will circumvent the rules by simply having a "buddy" buy for him. He brings back two beers to his seat and gives them to his already drunk friend.

I think the answer is to have more state police at the exit ramps. You know how slow the traffic is right there because you have to wait for the cars in front of you to move onto the exit lane, so you have cops right there, maybe even asking somebody who looks loaded to roll down their window so they can ask them if they're okay. If the bastard slurs his words and looks loaded, out of the car he comes for a test.

You do this enough at the beginning of the season and you'll make a hell of a lot of people think twice about dong it.

It's a really hard call on how to handle drinking and driving at public events. The cost of appropriate enforcement is huge. To do it right you need to rebuild the accessways to the stadium such that traffic can pass freely but there is also room to pull over a thousand cars after every event as they exit the site. Do this randomly and then get really medieval on the people who fail the breathalyzer.

Take away their cars. Take away their licenses. Take away their season tickets. Make them walk to the bus stand that you have built (expensive) solely to carry drunk drivers to the booking station where their status as criminals is formalized. Inform their employer that they have been arrested for drunk driving. Get them into the 12 step program to rebuild their hopefully shattered lives.

Personally I think it's better and more merciful just to shoot em.

[burkettbeststp]

I didn't read everyone's post but I read a couple. Plan and simple don't sell beer period. Most everyone on this board goes to the game to enjoy it. Will I have a drink while tailgating yes. Do I get drunk no. Because I want to go and enjoy the game. People who do get drunk ruin the game. They become obnoxous and rude and at times not fun to sit around during a game.

We all buy our tickets to enjoy the game and enjoy it with whoever we go with. Not to get drunk into a fight and so on. Does it happen yes and that is what makes going to a game uncomfortable. Go there root for the Jets and have fun. Take alcohol away if people can't be responsible.

That being said alcoho won't go away so be responsible. Know your limit. If you are 21 or older you should know your limit.

[King Koopa]

just from my experience.....i am 20 by the way .......drinking and driving is awful for kids my age......i hang out and see almost every kind of kid at parties or wherever (straight a's to druggies to jocks, whatever) either here at school or back home and everyone for the most part just doesn't realize the consequences or doesn't care about DWI....my parents have always been cool with me drinking around this age but they have hammered into my brain never to drink and drive and i never will.....my dad always says he will reimburst me if i ever have to use a taxi no questions asked......

[Section 227, Row 5]

Plain and simple don't sell beer period.

It might come to that one of these days. I've got people who sit near me who show up during the national anthem (which in itself pisses me off, but that's a whole other story) and they're loaded to the gills. Then, throughout the game, they're constantly up and down, walking by and in front of me because they have to go get another beer or go urinate, one of the two. They're usually the ones who get beligerant and start altercations too, which isn't surprising.

Yeah, I drink in the parking lot before a game. I used to drink a lot more but then I realized I wasn't seeing the game, I was spending all my time in the men's room and coming off a buzz. So now I have several drinks, maybe as many as 3 beers, and then that's it. I cut myself off before I enter the stadium. Now I have a little buzz, I'm eating some food, and by halftime I'm feeling fine and drinking water. And now, (Heaven's to Mergatroid), I can actually watch the freakin' game and see the plays!

[Gator]

It's a really hard call on how to handle drinking and driving at public events. The cost of appropriate enforcement is huge. To do it right you need to rebuild the accessways to the stadium such that traffic can pass freely but there is also room to pull over a thousand cars after every event as they exit the site. Do this randomly and then get really medieval on the people who fail the breathalyzer.

Take away their cars. Take away their licenses. Take away their season tickets. Make them walk to the bus stand that you have built (expensive) solely to carry drunk drivers to the booking station where their status as criminals is formalized. Inform their employer that they have been arrested for drunk driving. Get them into the 12 step program to rebuild their hopefully shattered lives.

Personally I think it's better and more merciful just to shoot em.



...and you don't see how this can be abused by law enforcement? Hey, there's my ex-wifes boyfriend. I think I'll execute him and get my drunk partner to blow into the breathalyser for the coverup.

C'mon, dude.

[Section 227, Row 5]

...and you don't see how this can be abused by law enforcement? Hey, there's my ex-wifes boyfriend. I think I'll execute him and get my drunk partner to blow into the breathalyser for the coverup.

C'mon, dude.

I think he's just being over the top to drive his point home.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

...and you don't see how this can be abused by law enforcement? Hey, there's my ex-wifes boyfriend. I think I'll execute him and get my drunk partner to blow into the breathalyser for the coverup.

C'mon, dude.

Some day I'll participate in a real discussion of law enforcement or the perversion thereof in the country. Today's not the day though. :)

[Section 227, Row 5]

Besides, if I ran into my ex-wife's boyfriend I'd probably kiss the son of a bitch for taking her off my hands for me.

[Gator]

I think he's just being over the top to drive his point home.

You're right, but he has said he's completely serious about this and has reiterated a couple of times now about the whole execution thing.

I vote that we just throw Tom Brady in jail until this is all sorted out.

[Namath2Kolber]

"I had a lot of fun when I was young but, now that I'm older, I want to spoil that fun for today's younger people."

How does enforcing a rule that bartenders not serve alcohol to intoxicated fans spoil fun for young people?

I get what you are saying. I just don't like it when people say things along the lines of "Look, when I was young, I did some crazy and stupid things. But things have changed and now we should ban those things." With drunk driving, I agree that there should be more enforcement. But this type of logic is used with drugs, drinking in general, sex, college partying, etc. and it pisses me off. That's all I'm saying.

[Mario]

Are people seriously blaming the people at the meadowlands for serving beer?! you gotta be kidding me. I dont care how drunk you are, no one puts a gun to your head and makes you buy more beer. No one makes you get into your car and hit someone. Its time that people take responsiblity and stop blaming everyone for their problems. If you drink and drive then only one person can be blamed!

[GeshJet]

QUOTE: "Either way, I will use my limited law school knowledge to figure this out. First of all, if the little girl was at the game with a guardian, the suit will fail because there is a contract on every ticket where the team basically makes you waive any suit. Then there's the issue of cause. You can sue a bartender who serves a really drunk person who then goes out and runs someone over. But you have to be able to prove all this. You have to prove that this specific driver was showing visible signs of being too drunk and you also have to show he didn't have any additional drinks that he snuck in or in the parking lot after the game. In short, these cases don't succeed often but, in the interests of avoiding bad press, people could always get a nice settlement."[/QUOTE]

I'm a federal prosecutor in Washington. The contract printed on the ticket is unenforceable - it's called a "contract of adhesion." I'm not a fan of soliciting new lawsuits and generally oppose advertisements. Here, though, they seem only to be asking for witnesses related to an existing suit - which is OK.

My view on this is that fans get way too drunk in the Jets' parking lot. This is with full knowledge of the team and the operators of the lots. I can see some culpability where they then allow known drunk drivers to get on the roads without any checking whatsoever.

[Namath2Kolber]

Are people seriously blaming the people at the meadowlands for serving beer?! you gotta be kidding me. I dont care how drunk you are, no one puts a gun to your head and makes you buy more beer. No one makes you get into your car and hit someone. Its time that people take responsiblity and stop blaming everyone for their problems. If you drink and drive then only one person can be blamed!

Good argument. Unfortunately for you, our legal system has a concept called "proximate cause." Basically it's one of the many legal fictions designed to help poor people recover from rich people. It ain't so bad.

[Mantana Soss]

Are people seriously blaming the people at the meadowlands for serving beer?! you gotta be kidding me. I dont care how drunk you are, no one puts a gun to your head and makes you buy more beer. No one makes you get into your car and hit someone. Its time that people take responsiblity and stop blaming everyone for their problems. If you drink and drive then only one person can be blamed!

What, you want personal accountability? Hah! (Yeah, it would be nice.)

[Namath2Kolber]

QUOTE:

I'm a federal prosecutor in Washington. The contract printed on the ticket is unenforceable - it's called a "contract of adhesion." I'm not a fan of soliciting new lawsuits and generally oppose advertisements. Here, though, they seem only to be asking for witnesses related to an existing suit - which is OK.



My understanding is that contracts of adhesion are usually upheld like those "I Agree" things you always click on software.

[Section 227, Row 5]

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

We all did a lot of things decades ago that were accepted and done in the context of that day, but that didn't make it right. There's no place in today's world for drunk driving, period. Get loaded, yes. Drive, yes. But don't f*cking drink and drive.


Kolber, I guess you didn't read my above post or I'm just not making my point clear enough for you. If I am the "people who say things" in your above post (several above this one), and you're still clammoring about this because you see it as somehow hypocritical, then obviously I'm not getting home here.

So let me reiterate please: I'm not saying I drank when I was young but today people shouldn't drink. And I'm not saying I drove when I was young, but today people shouldn't drive.

But I AM SAYING that I used to drink and drive and I AM SAYING people shouldn't do that anymore. Now if you have a problem with that and you think that's hypocrasy, that's just too f*cking bad and to disagree with that line of reasoning in today's world is just plain f*cking wrong.

[Mantana Soss]

My understanding is that contracts of adhesion are usually upheld like those "I Agree" things you always click on software.

Not necessarily. Look at ski lift tickets. You don't sign it, but you better believe there isn't a damn thing you can sue that facility for.

[Mario]

Good argument. Unfortunately for you, our legal system has a concept called "proximate cause." Basically it's one of the many legal fictions designed to help poor people recover from rich people. It ain't so bad.

I understand that not everyone can pay, so they go up the latter to find someone who can. If the meadowlands gets sued, thats fine. I just dont like when everyone is blaming someone else for serving them drinks. People who are over 21 should be responsible.

[LI JET FAN]

The only way big corporations or Government for that matter will take a active role is when they have to PAY! Everyone who has gone to a game can see the amount of beer and liquor being consumed is huge :drunk: . Add in the $7.00 beers and a 6,000 lb SUV and you can see how lifes are lost. Until it hurts the stadium operators and NFL owners get hurt by lawsuits such as these not much will be done. Before I step off my soapbox I was one of these guys who drank just for the "buzz" but now that I'm a father I see the other side.

[JetsFan2004]

In my opinion, our entire society ignores that we have a problem with drinking and driving. For example, why is it that a police officer cannot simply park out in fromt of a bar and pull over people who exit the bar and drive away? It's my understanding that they are not allowed to for fear that it will affect the business of the bar and there may be a lawsuit (I could be wrong as i'm an accountant and not an attorney). Isn't it probable cause to see someone leave a bar and assume they have been drinking?

Why can't police officers simply park on the shoulder of route 3 or 120 and pull people over as they exit the game?

I attend about 4 games a year and only drink maybe 3 or 4 beers in the parking lot before the game. When I get inside I'm too exited aboutt he game to keep getting up and waiting on the bathroom line or the beer line.

I know a lot of people that are still pounding in the parking lot after the game waiting until the traffic dies down. Those are the problem individuals if you ask me.

[Jetzz]

Kolber, I guess you didn't read my above post or I'm just not making my point clear enough for you. If I am the "people who say things" in your above post (several above this one), and you're still clammoring about this because you see it as somehow hypocritical, then obviously I'm not getting home here.

So let me reiterate please: I'm not saying I drank when I was young but today people shouldn't drink. And I'm not saying I drove when I was young, but today people shouldn't drive.

But I AM SAYING that I used to drink and drive and I AM SAYING people shouldn't do that anymore. Now if you have a problem with that and you think that's hypocrasy, that's just too f*cking bad and to disagree with that line of reasoning in today's world is just plain f*cking wrong.

I got a heavy mallet you can borrow if you want to pound it into his head. :lol: I completely agree with you on this. He can call it hypocrisy, I call it wisdom. :)

[Namath2Kolber]

I got a heavy mallet you can borrow if you want to pound it into his head. :lol: I completely agree with you on this. He can call it hypocrisy, I call it wisdom. :)

I am not calling Section a hypocrite. It's not hypocricy. It's "do as I say, not as I did." I happen to agree with him on this issue - even though drinking and driving was more acceptable in the past, there should be stricter rules now. I just don't like the logic of "I did this and, therefore, I know how bad it is so you can't do it."

[Mario]

If you want to get drunk at a game, thats fine. Just dont drive. If you do drive then you and hit someone you need to go to jail for a long time so you will learn a lesson.

[Section 227, Row 5]

In my opinion, our entire society ignores that we have a problem with drinking and driving. For example, why is it that a police officer cannot simply park out in fromt of a bar and pull over people who exit the bar and drive away? It's my understanding that they are not allowed to for fear that it will affect the business of the bar and there may be a lawsuit (I could be wrong as i'm an accountant and not an attorney). Isn't it probable cause to see someone leave a bar and assume they have been drinking?

Why can't police officers simply park on the shoulder of route 3 or 120 and pull people over as they exit the game?

I attend about 4 games a year and only drink maybe 3 or 4 beers in the parking lot before the game. When I get inside I'm too exited aboutt he game to keep getting up and waiting on the bathroom line or the beer line.

I know a lot of people that are still pounding in the parking lot after the game waiting until the traffic dies down. Those are the problem individuals if you ask me.

I believe society "matures" and evolves and learns from the past. This is part of what makes us different from other animals. What was socially acceptable in 1965 was not in 1985 and differs still today, otherwise we'd still all be harboring slaves and preventing our wives and daughters from voting and thinking these are fine ideas.

So yeah, drinking and driving has become a recognized problem as well it should be and while it may be unacceptable to some to have cops target bars today, that may not be the case 10 years from now.

But we certainly shouldn't confuse "fun" with drinking and driving. Yeah, it was fun to drink when I was young, but I don't think I ever considered it fun to drink and drive. It was just a necessity after drinking and not planning ahead. And certainly no one ever thought a "designated driver" was anything but wussy, so no one went there either. But things are different today and that's the bottom line. Recognizing stupid behavior and taking actions to correct it is smart and what makes society evolve into a better living situation for everyone.

[Section 227, Row 5]

I am not calling Section a hypocrite. It's not hypocricy. It's "do as I say, not as I did." I happen to agree with him on this issue - even though drinking and driving was more acceptable in the past, there should be stricter rules now. I just don't like the logic of "I did this and, therefore, I know how bad it is so you can't do it."

Okay, Jetzz, I think I need the heavy mallet now.

[WesleyWalker]

Nothing against you personally Section 227, but this mentality really annoys me. "I had a lot of fun when I was young but, now that I'm older, I want to spoil that fun for today's younger people."

Either way, I will use my limited law school knowledge to figure this out. First of all, if the little girl was at the game with a guardian, the suit will fail because there is a contract on every ticket where the team basically makes you waive any suit. Then there's the issue of cause. You can sue a bartender who serves a really drunk person who then goes out and runs someone over. But you have to be able to prove all this. You have to prove that this specific driver was showing visible signs of being too drunk and you also have to show he didn't have any additional drinks that he snuck in or in the parking lot after the game. In short, these cases don't succeed often but, in the interests of avoiding bad press, people could always get a nice settlement.

...If you can't get drunk by halftime your not very good at it. They need to start dealing with fans on an individual basis. If they appear to be intoxicated whatsoever, they should be refused alcohol. If they make a fuss about it, show them the door. God Damn dopes just can't go and watch a football game they have to get tuned up put OTHER people at risk...

[soh_vet]

2-4 beers should be enough for anyone (no matter your weight or tolerance) to get a DWI. Not sure if it's .08 or .1, if you feel the slight of slightest buzzes you are drunk in the eyes of the law (you don't even have to feel it to get one). And even if you fall on the exact %, it is in the discretion of the officer to give your DWI or not. And no excuse like "i don't feel drunk" will work (unless you know people).

If you want to avoid it, just don't drink at all. get a case and drown yourself at home and watch the game (which is what i do, minus 18 beers). I and many of my friends have got at least 1 DWI in the past 10 yrs. when you're younger, you never think you'll get one until you do. lesson learned and i'll never do it again. thankfully i never hit anyone or anything during those binge days.

[Gator]

If they appear to be intoxicated whatsoever, they should be refused alcohol.


Won't work. Drunks will just find some non-drunk to get them beer. Next!

[Section 227, Row 5]

Going to the games has gotten better, it really has, fellas. It used to be much worse. I stopped going to Rangers games because of the fights. Philadelphia Flyers fans were the worst. In the 70's, guys would throw beer down on you, curse at you, you couldn't bring your kids. So then I started going to the Jets games when I got my tickets when they moved from Shea.

But in the mid-late '80's, people were coking it up right in the stadium, I kid you not! And lots of drunks. And there were many more fights and many more drunks than you have today, so the stadium and it's policies have improved and become more "family friendly" over the years. There's still room for improvement, and for sure the alcohol thing is probably the next thing that needs to be looked at again, but I enjoy going to the games even moreso today. I like the tailgating, drinking moderately and responsibly and I really enjoy cutting off the booze before I go into the game, so I can actually watch the plays, for crying out loud!

Hey, I'm older now, so throwing punches gets harder and the recovery time is longer. Besides, my dentist is tired of repairing my cracked teeth and my wife tries to break up fights and ruin all the fun. So the whole thinkg has degenerated into me sitting there amongst all the drunks who stand up and block my view and then damn-near run into the side of my car pulling out of the parking lot and I just try to enjoy the game and see what the hell is happening.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

Won't work. Drunks will just find some non-drunk to get them beer. Next!


Eventually the answer will be to ban alchohol sales in venues that promote drunk driving afterwards. We're a ways down the road from that though.

I believe there will be a bunch of lawsuits (small bars have already been closed down in many cases because the owners did not have the money to fight in court) that will veer back and forth and eventually alcohol will be a substance that is used primarily in the home and not in public.

We're seeing many public health related initiatives trump economic interests at this point, mainly the cigarette bans of recent years, and it's clear that alcohol is going to be the next big target. We're on a little sideshow with the transfats thing at the moment, but transfats are suicide for the person who abuses them and alcohol is homicide and that distinction is going to steamroller anybody who tries to get in the political path of safe-alcohol reform.

Edit: Think how different this country would be right now if Teddy Kennedy and George Bush had both been disqualified from citizenship for their drunk driving indiscretions?

[SigmaXJet]

As to the main issue, I think everybody who walks up to an alcohol serving venue in Giants stadium should have to blow into a tube and if the breathalyzer says they are approaching intoxication they should not be served.

just because some people can't control themselves at football games doesn't mean everyone else should have their personal rights violated

[Br4dw4y5ux]

just because some people can't control themselves at football games doesn't mean everyone else should have their personal rights violated

How would having to blow into a tube to determine if you were abusing alcohol that day interfere with your personal rights?

And you do not have the right to abuse alcohol in public, so let's get that one out of the way before we start this argument. New Jersey's public intoxication laws are very clear.

Edit: gonna have to edit this one. Was unable to find any New Jersey laws regarding the mere fact of intoxication. All the applicable statutes are regarding behavior after the fact. E.g. Drunk and Disorderly, Driving While Impaired, Creating a Public Nuisance, etc. Which of course means that the laws need to be modified a bit.

[Gator]

just because some people can't control themselves at football games doesn't mean everyone else should have their personal rights violated


Sure it does. It starts in school where the teacher warns you if one kid does something, the whole class suffers. In the army or a sports team, if one guy messes up everyone has to do laps or pushups. Somebody blows up the subway and everyone gets their bags checked. Just the way it is.

[Jetzz]

Okay, Jetzz, I think I need the heavy mallet now.

I was just thinking the same thing... :grin:

[Jetzz]

I am not calling Section a hypocrite. It's not hypocricy. It's "do as I say, not as I did." I happen to agree with him on this issue - even though drinking and driving was more acceptable in the past, there should be stricter rules now. I just don't like the logic of "I did this and, therefore, I know how bad it is so you can't do it."

Unfortunately we sometimes learn through hindsight. We don't see the detriment of what we are doing until we are older and wiser, or until we have done something tragically wrong (like getting someone killed). So you have learned a lesson and now you can't say anything bad about it or try to change things because you were guilty of it before? Who better to educate than those that have lived and learned?

[baamf]

This thread is making me thirsty.....

[SigmaXJet]

Edit: Think how different this country would be right now if Teddy Kennedy and George Bush had both been disqualified from citizenship for their drunk driving indiscretions?

save the politics for the BS forum

[Pam]

This thread is making me thirsty.....

:rofl:

I've only been to one game and that was the Ravens/Jets game in Baltimore. It wasn't what I had in mind. People in the row behind us and in front of us were piss ass drunk. Spilling beer on us, LOUD, and rude. The people in the front were constantly getting up (I'm assuming potty calls).
I'm a drinker, but I also have the common sense to know when enough is enough, especially in public places.

I'll watch my games in front of my big screen where the only drunk I have to deal with is me. :grin:

[vxvenom]

Nothing against you personally Section 227, but this mentality really annoys me. "I had a lot of fun when I was young but, now that I'm older, I want to spoil that fun for today's younger people."

Either way, I will use my limited law school knowledge to figure this out. First of all, if the little girl was at the game with a guardian, the suit will fail because there is a contract on every ticket where the team basically makes you waive any suit. Then there's the issue of cause. You can sue a bartender who serves a really drunk person who then goes out and runs someone over. But you have to be able to prove all this. You have to prove that this specific driver was showing visible signs of being too drunk and you also have to show he didn't have any additional drinks that he snuck in or in the parking lot after the game. In short, these cases don't succeed often but, in the interests of avoiding bad press, people could always get a nice settlement.

Limited knowledge, indeed. The first thing you learn in first year contracts is any disclaimer of liability on something like a ticket can be argued to be boiler plate. Especially for something like a football game where the level of legal sophistication is fairly low for ticket purchasers. A lot of times, the disclaimer exists so people, like yourself, read it and assume its necessarily binding. It isn't. Secondly, on the causation issue, you can argue that by selling the drunk individual beer, it increased the probability that a drunk driving accident would occur. In drunk driving cases, if it gets to trial, there is a high chance that the little girl will recover, because juries are sympathetic towards little girls who are injured in drunk driving accidents.

Furthermore, since when is speaking out against drunk driving "spoiling people's fun?"

[baamf]

Limited knowledge, indeed. The first thing you learn in first year contracts is any disclaimer of liability on something like a ticket can be argued to be boiler plate. Especially for something like a football game where the level of legal sophistication is fairly low for ticket purchasers. A lot of times, the disclaimer exists so people, like yourself, read it and assume its necessarily binding. It isn't. Secondly, on the causation issue, you can argue that by selling the drunk individual beer, it increased the probability that a drunk driving accident would occur. In drunk driving cases, if it gets to trial, there is a high chance that the little girl will recover, because juries are sympathetic towards little girls who are injured in drunk driving accidents.

Furthermore, since when is speaking out against drunk driving "spoiling people's fun?"

Hey, I resemble that remark.....

[vxvenom]

"Hey, I resemble that remark....."

nothing against fans. All I'm saying is that this isn't a business situation, where the fine print may fly because there is a presumption here that the average person doesn't read the fine print. I sure as hell don't.

It's just bugs me when innocent people have their lives ruined by some idiot drunk driver, and some law student chimes in with his undeveloped opinion about how there is no remedy. If the parents of this poor little girl had listened to him, they would have gotten nothing. And I know all the money in the world is not enough to replace the future of a child, regardless, they should get something.

[statjeff22]

It's a really hard call on how to handle drinking and driving at public events. The cost of appropriate enforcement is huge. To do it right you need to rebuild the accessways to the stadium such that traffic can pass freely but there is also room to pull over a thousand cars after every event as they exit the site. Do this randomly and then get really medieval on the people who fail the breathalyzer.



Well, here's an interesting point - they are about to start building a new stadium completely from scratch, and can set up the accessways any way they choose. It's easy for me to say (given that I don't have season tix), but the idea of randomly pulling over drivers as they leave the parking lot seems like a great idea to me, and one that could be built into the design of the stadium.

This is also why I believe that the belief that going after deep pockets is always just greed is misplaced. If the Giants & Jets / NJ Sports Authority thought that nothing bad could happen to them as a result, they would keep pouring beer down throats as much as possible. These kinds of lawsuits are the only way that you can get the attention of the companies that can actually do something about it. If you don't believe that, just look at the tobacco industry - they (and their leaders and spokespeople) continued to lie in public (including perjuring themselves before Congress) until they started losing those lawsuits. Then, all of a sudden, they started playing nice.

[Gator]

"Hey, I resemble that remark....."

nothing against fans. All I'm saying is that this isn't a business situation, where the fine print may fly because there is a presumption here that the average person doesn't read the fine print. I sure as hell don't.

It's just bugs me when innocent people have their lives ruined by some idiot drunk driver, and some law student chimes in with his undeveloped opinion about how there is no remedy. If the parents of this poor little girl had listened to him, they would have gotten nothing. And I know all the money in the world is not enough to replace the future of a child, regardless, they should get something.



They did get something. Aramark paid the family millions, I believe. This new thing is a law firm going, "Hey, the stadium is liable too. We'll take the case on contingency. It won't cost you a dime, unless we win........but then it's found money anyway".

So you, as a lawyer, may be annoyed with uninformed law students. The rest of us (ya know, the other 97%) are annoyed at lawyers.

[Hobbes3259]

This thread is making me thirsty.....

No, no..try it like this "This ....THREAD is making me thirsty..."

[Hobbes3259]

Well, here's an interesting point - they are about to start building a new stadium completely from scratch, and can set up the accessways any way they choose. It's easy for me to say (given that I don't have season tix), but the idea of randomly pulling over drivers as they leave the parking lot seems like a great idea to me,

...and one that could be built into the design of the stadium.


Sure, call up some Albert Speers old plans from the early 1930's.

Sheesh.

[Section 227, Row 5]

Well now, there seems to be a lot of interest in this thread.

Good!

If I've accomplished anything today it has been to call attention to what can happen when you drink like a fish at the stadium and then drive home. I knew I'd get a lot of response because I often see posts by people boasting of getting drunk while watching games. And hey, again, I have no problem with that! That's your business. I intend to be drinking at my son's house on Thanksgiving and he's an hour away. But my wife doesn't drink, so I'll just hand her the keys and she does this gladly, even if I've only had 2 beers.

I like the suggestion by Statjeff22 to build in a designated area now on the access roads (specifically the exit roads). Enough of a "spur" (I think that's what you call it) could be gouged out of the exit area ramps just before entering the major highways (right where the traffic comes to a natural slowdown leaving the parking area) where you could have parking for state highway patrol officers to safely park their vehicles and, if need be, conduct very public displays of DWI arrests in progress. Nothing could be more sobering than to pass right next to a guy touching his nose and walking toe to heel in front of state troopers and then getting cuffed.

To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.

[GeshJet]

Not necessarily. Look at ski lift tickets. You don't sign it, but you better believe there isn't a damn thing you can sue that facility for.

That ususally does not work in the courts, though. It is a legal obstacle, but typically overcome. The primary reason for these disclaimers, just like a sign at the supermarket saying they are not liable for damage caused by the shopping carts, is to dissuade people from filing claims/suing in the first place.

[GeshJet]

Limited knowledge, indeed. The first thing you learn in first year contracts is any disclaimer of liability on something like a ticket can be argued to be boiler plate. Especially for something like a football game where the level of legal sophistication is fairly low for ticket purchasers. A lot of times, the disclaimer exists so people, like yourself, read it and assume its necessarily binding. It isn't. Secondly, on the causation issue, you can argue that by selling the drunk individual beer, it increased the probability that a drunk driving accident would occur. In drunk driving cases, if it gets to trial, there is a high chance that the little girl will recover, because juries are sympathetic towards little girls who are injured in drunk driving accidents.

Furthermore, since when is speaking out against drunk driving "spoiling people's fun?"

I replied to the earlier post before reading this one. This analysis is entirely correct. Don't blame lawyers or plaintiffs. The scourge are the drunk drivers. I'm all for efforts to stop drunk driving resulting from tailgating. Go ahead and drink, but have someone sober to drive. If it takes litigation to help that along, good.

[statjeff22]

Sure, call up some Albert Speers old plans from the early 1930's.

Sheesh.

Since random DWI stops have been shown to be completely legal in every municipality, spare me the ridiculous Nazi references. My mother-in-law the Auschwitz survivor doesn't find them amusing.

[The Foot Fetish]

Cops can stop you for anything... it's called probable cause. Which is anything they can think of at that moment. like you were weaving, you were close to the yellow line, basically I pulled you over because I felt like it... so please spare us the Nazi references.

[Mickey Shuler 82]

They did get something. Aramark paid the family millions, I believe. This new thing is a law firm going, "Hey, the stadium is liable too. We'll take the case on contingency. It won't cost you a dime, unless we win........but then it's found money anyway".

So you, as a lawyer, may be annoyed with uninformed law students. The rest of us (ya know, the other 97%) are annoyed at lawyers.
What is millions to Aramark when they charge, what, $7.50 a beer. Take their license to sell, and that's what would really punish them.

I don't know enough about the law, and don't pretend to. But where is personal responsibility in this case. If it doesn't ultimately reside there, why doesn't GM get charged for building the car that did the damage? NJ for building a curvy road? Budweiser for making beer? The bank for enabling money to be withdrawn for buying beer?

I've got a little girl, and wouldn't want to see her hurt in anyway. So please don't think I am looking past the ultimate victim: this poor girl.

[Br4dw4y5ux]

Since random DWI stops have been shown to be completely legal in every municipality, spare me the ridiculous Nazi references. My mother-in-law the Auschwitz survivor doesn't find them amusing.

Remember the golden internet rule: every thread about liberty or justice will eventually devolve into a reference to some prominent Nazi (usually Hitler but not always.) The person who makes that reference has lost the rational argument in progress and it's time to close the thread and move on. In this case trotting Albert Speer out was a clear indication that Hobbes had nothing useful to contribute to the argument. Case closed. Time to move on. :)

[Mantana Soss]

That ususally does not work in the courts, though. It is a legal obstacle, but typically overcome. The primary reason for these disclaimers, just like a sign at the supermarket saying they are not liable for damage caused by the shopping carts, is to dissuade people from filing claims/suing in the first place.

In the drunk driving case, or your example, maybe not. But in the case of ski resorts ... that contract is air-tight. They could dig a 20 foot hole in the middle of one of their slopes and 12 people could fall in and break their legs. I'd bet you anything they couldn't sue for a cent. Partly well worked out agreements with governments, and partly "inherent risk."

[Big Cotch]

You cannot predict which drunk driver you pull over is going to kill somebody two months down the road when he goes out and has some "fun" again.

Shoot em all and let god sort em out.

I'd describe how some of the people I loved died but it would create an image for you that would probably stay with you for the rest of your life and as angry as I can get about this issue I'm not going to do that to you.

16,000 people a year are killed in accidents involving a drunk driver. 10% of the drunk drivers involved in these fatalities have at least one DWI conviction and nearly a quarter have been cited for DUI or DWI previously. This is a predictable killer and the killer is not alcohol, it's the people who choose to drink and drive.

As to the main issue, I think everybody who walks up to an alcohol serving venue in Giants stadium should have to blow into a tube and if the breathalyzer says they are approaching intoxication they should not be served.
Cool, 65,000 people will now be infected with oral Herpes each week.

KILLER PLAN!

[Section 227, Row 5]

Cool, 65,000 people will now be infected with oral Herpes each week.

KILLER PLAN!

Assinine post, Cotch, and you know it. Either seriously contribute or find another way of jerking yourself off.

[Dinobot 2]

I'm gonna move this over to Jets Experience and give it a sticky.

[Big Cotch]

Assinine post, Cotch, and you know it. Either seriously contribute or find another way of jerking yourself off.
Wow, either you currently have a Herpes outbreak on your lower lip, or you're just a real hard on!!

[Dinobot 2]

Wow, either you currently have a Herpes outbreak on your lower lip, or you're just a real hard on!!

I have a feeling you'd be nominated for Trouble Maker of 07'. I'd shape up if I were you.

[Lord of Sec. 107 row]

I have no sympathy for any body that drinks and drive

[Montana]

epic thread.

[Dirrty Sanchize]

yeah no remorse for these people

[GordonGecko]

still don't understand why this is a sticky. Might as well make one for "don't do drugs", "don't hit women", "don't rip the tag off a new matress in the store", etc etc

[Yisman]

fixed .

[jimbaumbach1]

I'm a sportswriter with Newsday working on a story about the overall fan experience at NFL games, and this post from many years ago caught my eye...
To view links in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. Your post count is 0 momentarily.