: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:
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....." 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.
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.
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.
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. Like I say, do that enough times at the beginning of the season (or Monday night games, in particular) and you'll see a marked difference in the number of drunks behind the wheel. Hell, it might even make for a more enjoyable game because you don't have the @sshole comments and the disruptions. I wouldn't look for the Giants or Jets to propose this however. After all, they want to sell beer at $7 a pop. But somebody like Corzine should earn his keep and have the balls to propose it, particularly because he could fall back on this lawsuit and say, "Here, see? This is why we need this!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
Assinine post, Cotch, and you know it. Either seriously contribute or find another way of jerking yourself off.
