Well, someone has to post this right? (Tiger/lawsuit)

Not sure what the precedent is for lawsuits like this but i am guessing it's a very difficult thing to prove.

Let's try and keep this classy

http://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/26740827/tiger-girlfriend-named-wrongful-death-lawsuit

I know one thing: I wouldn't want to own a bar, or be a bartender in these litigious times we live in.

> @bladehunter said:

> Lol. Of course. It couldn’t be his fault. They tied him up and made him drink. This world has lost its mind. Judge throw it out.

>

> Nothing more than a family trying to cash in .

I recall the family of a St Louis Cardinals Pitcher maybe 10yrs ago tried to sue a bunch of people after he died in a drunk driving accident, including the bar he was drinking at....and eventually dropped the case.

I don't know if that is the norm but as mentioned i'm guessing these cases are brutal to prove, so i'm guessing it is and this goes nowhere.

But i guess someone had to throw it out here.

Anyone asking if the family knew this guy was habitually addicted?

"The lawsuit alleges that Woods and Herman were **"drinking with him at The Woods bar only a few nights _before_ the fatal crash** of December 10, 2018.''"

GTFO

> @Steele47 said:

> Anyone asking if the family knew this guy was habitually addicted?

But the family didn't serve him, the family will argue.

The way our legal system works, the family may cash an out of court settlement check over this. Unfortunately.

Prob shooting for a good settlement.

And playing devils advocate I bet there is a lot of case law out there about an unsafe work environment and who is responsible.

You would have to dig up cases involving workers at bars and wrongful death .

Who knows...

Sucks the guy is dead and sucks that tiger has this hanging over his head. Yet again trouble follows this guy... such a surprise. Def not a pattern. Right?

If you keep putting yourself in the wrong place then bad things are going to happen.

Is he ever going to go to A.A.? Maybe after the next scandal

> @tatertot said:

> > @Steele47 said:

> > Anyone asking if the family knew this guy was habitually addicted?

>

> But the family didn't serve him, the family will argue.

>

> The way our legal system works, the family may cash an out of court settlement check over this. Unfortunately.

Sure. But according to the article Tiger and his GF should have known he was 'habitually addicted'. Seems to me the wording 'habitually addicted' (the lawsuit's terms) implies a substantial history, and not just one sitting on a barstool. I'm no lawyer but seems they may regret their chosen terminology as it does not isolate the night of the incident which means others (the family perhaps) should be culpable as well.

In my state, MD a bar and bartender may be held liable for an accident if they are over served. Key word Over served. The last I heard about this type of incident. A Hooters served a guy a boat load of alcohol in a short amount of time. He left and just a few hundred yards up the road he struck and killed a police officer. ( I was/am friends with his father). The restaurant lost their liquor license and closed. Didn't hear if they paid any money also.

As someone said. No way I would to own a bar or restaurant.

The laws for being overserved at a bar and the bar being liable vary from state to state I believe. While rare, you can win these types of lawsuits.

> @Steele47 said:

> Anyone asking if the family knew this guy was habitually addicted?

Bingo. Reason number 2001 why i couldn’t be a judge. I’d lay into them if they brought this to my bench.

> @tatertot said:

> > @Steele47 said:

> > Anyone asking if the family knew this guy was habitually addicted?

>

> But the family didn't serve him, the family will argue.

>

> The way our legal system works, the family may cash an out of court settlement check over this. Unfortunately.

Dollars to dog poop he served himself.

> @"Holy Moses" said:

> The laws for being overused and a bar as being liable vary from state to state I believe. While rare, you can win these types of lawsuits.

What’s legal and what’s right don’t collide as often as People like to think.

John cougar and Luke has it right.

Surprise, press conference the week of a major. Hmmm, major attention wh_____s.

So the guy has a problem with alcohol and works as a bartender. If his family cared so much, why allow that to happen? Oh yeah, that's right, he's an adult and can make adult decisions.

> @BB28403 said:

... Yet again trouble follows this guy... such a surprise. Def not a pattern. Right?

> If you keep putting yourself in the wrong place then bad things are going to happen.

> Is he ever going to go to A.A.? Maybe after the next scandal.

I think you are mixing 2 issues. I'm not going to argue about if Tiger has any issues, but I dont know how that has anything to do with this. Having drinks with the bartender at your restaurant nights before he dies means you're in the wrong place? At your own restaurant?

Wouldn't they have to prove that Tiger also knew he would drive home?

Like, there's no crime in getting hammered and taking an Uber home. I mean how do you even prove this?

> @Hawkeye77 said:

> Surprise, press conference the week of a major. Hmmm, major attention wh_____s.

I'm thinking Bscinstnct countersuit for emotional distress.

> @blink3665 said:

> > @BB28403 said:

> ... Yet again trouble follows this guy... such a surprise. Def not a pattern. Right?

> > If you keep putting yourself in the wrong place then bad things are going to happen.

> > Is he ever going to go to A.A.? Maybe after the next scandal.

>

> I think you are mixing 2 issues. I'm not going to argue about if Tiger has any issues, but I dont know how that has anything to do with this. Having drinks with the bartender at your restaurant nights before he dies means you're in the wrong place? At your own restaurant?

I think you could establish this guy partied with tiger. And could draw the conclusion that tiger is irresponsible at his business.

I’m just saying these things for arguments sake.

It will all prob go away before it reaches a court room.

> @Steele47 said:

> Sure. But according to the article Tiger and his GF should have known he was 'habitually addicted'. Seems to me the wording 'habitually addicted' (the lawsuit's terms) implies a substantial history, and not just one sitting on a barstool. I'm no lawyer but seems they may regret their chosen terminology as it does not isolate the night of the incident which means others (the family perhaps) should be culpable as well.

Laws that allow liability against bars/bartenders are called Dram Shop laws. Florida’s dream shop law is unique in that the only way a bar/bartender can be held liable is if they are found to have knowingly served alcohol to someone they knew to be “habitually addicted” to alcohol. So, as a matter of proper pleading, they are required to use that term.

Disclaimer: While I am a licensed attorney, I am not licensed in Florida. Nothing in this post is legal advice nor should it be construed as such.

> @Philomathesq said:

> > @Steele47 said:

> > Sure. But according to the article Tiger and his GF should have known he was 'habitually addicted'. Seems to me the wording 'habitually addicted' (the lawsuit's terms) implies a substantial history, and not just one sitting on a barstool. I'm no lawyer but seems they may regret their chosen terminology as it does not isolate the night of the incident which means others (the family perhaps) should be culpable as well.

>

> Laws that allow liability against bars/bartenders are called Dram Shop laws. Florida’s dream shop law is unique in that the only way a bar/bartender can be held liable is if they are found to have knowingly served alcohol to someone they knew to be “habitually addicted” to alcohol. So, as a matter of proper pleading, they are required to use that term.

>

> Disclaimer: While I am a licensed attorney, I am not licensed in Florida. Nothing in this post is legal advice nor should it be construed as such.

>

I am not an attorney. But I’ve paid several very good ones. Lol.

I’m assuming that if they can’t prove this guy was served by the bar / restaurant then it’s on him ? As in if he’s pouring his own during a shift , or after he’s off. Then it’s his responsibility. They’d need a debit card slip showing he paid to prove how many drinks and that they over served for the dram law to be in effect. Otherwise it’s just a guy drinking with friends. No ? Are we now going to sue every drinking buddy we have ?

Sidebar- If something like this could stick. It just goes to show how effed up the world is.

I once stood in court and addressed a judge on behalf of a 6 year old boy who’s mother nearly killed him at age 3 by having him in an active meth lab. She had managed to pass a few drug tests and was petitioning the court for visitation . By herself. No attorney at all. The objection I had was that I knew she was a high functioning alcoholic. I asked that the judge force alcohol tests same as drug. He literally stood up , Pointed at the clock on the wall and told me I was wasting his time. That alcohol was legal and that until she was convicted of an alcohol infraction that it wasn’t necessary.

2 months later she totaled her car ( again ) this time she didn’t get away with it. DUI.

If a judge can care that little about it in one forum. How can other people be liable for someone else’s choice in another. Setup to protect drunks both directions.

this suit didnt come out of nothing.Lawyers have been trying this tactic for a while and now prosecutors are starting to try... scary story

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/us/bartender-arrested-intoxicated-man-shooting/index.html

> @lowheel said:

> this suit didnt come out of nothing.Lawyers have been trying this tactic for a while and now prosecutors are starting to try... scary story

> https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/08/us/bartender-arrested-intoxicated-man-shooting/index.html

Yep. At some point it will all implode.

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Steele47 said:

> > Anyone asking if the family knew this guy was habitually addicted?

>

> Bingo. Reason number 2001 why i couldn’t be a judge. I’d lay into them if they brought this to my bench.

The guy that disagreed with you on this post Blade must think you COULD be a judge and that you WOULD NOT lay into them. lol..

> @Steele47 said:

> > @bladehunter said:

> > > @Steele47 said:

> > > Anyone asking if the family knew this guy was habitually addicted?

> >

> > Bingo. Reason number 2001 why i couldn’t be a judge. I’d lay into them if they brought this to my bench.

>

> The guy that disagreed with you on this post Blade must think you COULD be a judge and that you WOULD NOT lay into them. lol..

That same guy disagreed with me too....he must be a bar owner, or a bartender. lol

Lots of moral arguments behind the plaintiffs' case, all of which may or may not be true. The family should have put this much effort into finding the 24 year old a different job and path in life. I'm a sober member of AA myself(3 years) and only my own actions are to blame for my current circumstance, nobody else, case closed. Money grab and shameful at that.

Newsflash: Son learns of this ridiculous lawsuit and his missed opportunity to get rich by coming back from the dead to sue his parents for allowing him to work at a bar when they knew he was an alcoholic. Parents pay him off with the money they make off the Tiger settlement. Still buys a million dollar house and a Ferrari.

Seriously, the judge needs to throw this out just for the sheer facetious claim by the parents. Also, if this pasts, employers should always know if employees are alcoholics, so that they don't get sued for other things as well.

Owning a restaurant seems like a huge pain in the butt. (Oops, am I allowed to say that??? The filter didn't catch it so I assume it's ok. In any case, I apologize in advance for the crude language, if anyone is offended!)

> @BB28403 said:

> > @blink3665 said:

> > > @BB28403 said:

> > ... Yet again trouble follows this guy... such a surprise. Def not a pattern. Right?

> > > If you keep putting yourself in the wrong place then bad things are going to happen.

> > > Is he ever going to go to A.A.? Maybe after the next scandal.

> >

> > I think you are mixing 2 issues. I'm not going to argue about if Tiger has any issues, but I dont know how that has anything to do with this. Having drinks with the bartender at your restaurant nights before he dies means you're in the wrong place? At your own restaurant?

> I think you could establish this guy partied with tiger. And could draw the conclusion that tiger is irresponsible at his business.

> I’m just saying these things for arguments sake.

> It will all prob go away before it reaches a court room.

>

Not sure if there is precedent/law that applies to an employers responsibility for knowing someone is an alcoholic and being liable if they know the person drinks on the job or they see them drinking on the premises after work. This would seem to create liability for many people who encounter an intoxicated person and then knowingly "allow" them to drive. Imagine if you were held responsible if you're at dinner with someone or you had some drinks at the office with them and you know they are drinking but let them drive home and the have an accident.

I think the law applies and can hold the bartender/establishment responsible if a customer is served with the knowledge they are drunk. Seems the person finished their shift and remained and kept drinking at the bar. So, were they being served, did they serve themselves, would they be considered a customer, would it matter if they paid or is the fact that they are at the bar be enough being served even if the drinks were not paid for? These would seem to be the questions here.