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

[LyinEye]

> @bladehunter said:

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

 

Lol...

 

 

 

 

[bbr16]

Feel awful for the family, but nobody forced him to drink and drive. What a ridiculous lawsuit. I hope tiger can find a way to put this distraction aside this week and play well. An unfortunate start to an otherwise exciting week for golf and tiger fans.

[dlygrisse]

> @Ferguson said:

> Albeit thin, there are a few angles to support the suit.

>

> One would be to delve into the hiring practices of the joint.

> In other words, what sort of business owner or manager would hire a known habitual addict?

>

> The other would be the training of employees and the ability to identify someone who has had too much to drink.

> Is it a normal practice for employees to consume booze while working?

>

>

 

So Mr. So and so....I have just one question before I make you a job offer. Are you a habitual addict? I need 2 statements from close friends stating you are not......

Seriously Ferguson, every business in the country would open themselves up to the HR lawyers for a question like this. Why don't we go ahead and ask their age, sexual orientation, religious preference and blood type.

You seem to be the type of guy who is about personal responsibility...how about that?

[bladehunter]

> @Pent08 said:

> > @blink3665 said:

> > Can an employee sue for discrimination if they are fired for being an alcoholic? I thought that substance abuse was protected by the law. (I'm just looking for more clarity. I'm not pushing on this argument in either direction.)

>

> You can't be fired for simply being an alcoholic. That's as far as that goes. So yes, an employer can be sued for discriminating on the basis of a disability.

 

Is that in any state ? Not talking an actual handicapped person. But an alcoholic. While I agree some people are predisposed to being easily addicted , I fail to see how it’s listed as a disability. And therefore covered by the Americans with disabilities act. If that’s the case guys who love chocolate cake and weigh 600 lbs have Job. security too. For Pete’s sake.

 

Edit. I refuse to believe that you can’t fire base on alcoholic status. Truck drivers can be , cops should be , teachers etc. Plenty of jobs subject to drug/alcohol screening at random.

[joeshmo]

Wonder how this ambulance chaser got this gig.

He is also going after Bill Cosby

[bladehunter]

> @joeshmo said:

> Wonder how this ambulance chaser got this gig.

> He is also going after Bill Cosby

 

Wow. Somebody put the ambulance in reverse ! Quick.

[Dpavs]

I think we all probably lack sufficient information at this point to say whether the suit is frivolous or not but, if I get the jest of the post so far correctly-

Basically the consensus is that laws that allow this kind of law suit are bad as applied to Tiger but up until now, the same laws which have been around for quite some time and which require social responsibility regarding the dispensing of alcohol made some sense... did I get it right?

Well I am glad to see there is consistency in these TW threads anyway.

[puttingmatt]

Most likely, the family will settle with the insurance

company that insures the restaurant , and with no

admission of fault on the part of Tiger incorporated. Doubt it goes to trial, unless there

was criminal intent.

 

Next real world problem ........

[chigolfer1]

> @bbr16 said:

> Feel awful for the family, but nobody forced him to drink and drive. What a ridiculous lawsuit. I hope tiger can find a way to put this distraction aside this week and play well. An unfortunate start to an otherwise exciting week for golf and tiger fans.

 

I haven't read that deeply into the suit but I'm not sure I understand which part is ridiculous. Bars have a responsibility to not serve patrons that are clearly drunk.

[Potatohead]

> @Dpavs said:

> I think we all probably lack sufficient information at this point to say whether the suit is frivolous or not but, if I get the jest of the post so far correctly-

> Basically the consensus is that laws that allow this kind of law suit are bad as applied to Tiger but up until now, the same laws which have been around for quite some time and which require social responsibility regarding the dispensing of alcohol made some sense... did I get it right?

> Well I am glad to see there is consistency in these TW threads anyway.

 

I'm not picking that up, really at all, most people aren't even including TW in the discussion.

I mean the analogy earlier of a fat dude ordering a hamburger and the restaurant obliging is basically bang on. Although I guess in this case it would be a cook who stayed late and ate a bunch of ham sandwiches and then his heart exploded.

[Krt22]

> @Dpavs said:

> I think we all probably lack sufficient information at this point to say whether the suit is frivolous or not but, if I get the jest of the post so far correctly-

> Basically the consensus is that laws that allow this kind of law suit are bad as applied to Tiger but up until now, the same laws which have been around for quite some time and which require social responsibility regarding the dispensing of alcohol made some sense... did I get it right?

> Well I am glad to see there is consistency in these TW threads anyway.

 

I cant see the validity in any lawsuit that essentially says a fully grown adult should not be held responsible for their own actions.

[Krt22]

> @chigolfer1 said:

> > @bbr16 said:

> > Feel awful for the family, but nobody forced him to drink and drive. What a ridiculous lawsuit. I hope tiger can find a way to put this distraction aside this week and play well. An unfortunate start to an otherwise exciting week for golf and tiger fans.

>

> I haven't read that deeply into the suit but I'm not sure I understand which part is ridiculous. Bars have a responsibility to not serve patrons that are clearly drunk.

 

If the bartender was a habitual alcoholic as the suit claims, he very well could have been well over the limit while still appearing relatively cognitive/alert/etc.

[BiggErn]

> @chigolfer1 said:

> > @bbr16 said:

> > Feel awful for the family, but nobody forced him to drink and drive. What a ridiculous lawsuit. I hope tiger can find a way to put this distraction aside this week and play well. An unfortunate start to an otherwise exciting week for golf and tiger fans.

>

> I haven't read that deeply into the suit but I'm not sure I understand which part is ridiculous. Bars have a responsibility to not serve patrons that are clearly drunk.

 

The word “clearly” is really subjective. Not every drinker tries to fight everyone or is overly loud and obnoxious.

[dalehead]

The destruction of the surveillance tape, if true, is a really complicating factor. It shows consciousness of guilt. That will not play well with a jury if it goes to trial. It will also make it harder for the insurance company to low ball a settlement. Not to mention any criminal liability.

[chigolfer1]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @chigolfer1 said:

> > > @bbr16 said:

> > > Feel awful for the family, but nobody forced him to drink and drive. What a ridiculous lawsuit. I hope tiger can find a way to put this distraction aside this week and play well. An unfortunate start to an otherwise exciting week for golf and tiger fans.

> >

> > I haven't read that deeply into the suit but I'm not sure I understand which part is ridiculous. Bars have a responsibility to not serve patrons that are clearly drunk.

>

> The word “clearly” is really subjective. Not every drinker tries to fight everyone or is overly loud and obnoxious.

 

Fair enough, that's probably going to be part of the case. But, I'm not hearing that sort of nuance from other posters. When they flatly say the lawsuit is ridiculous, they seem to be suggesting they don't think a bar ever has that responsibility. They can correct me if I'm wrong.

[chigolfer1]

> @dalehead said:

> The destruction of the surveillance tape, if true, is a really complicating factor. It shows consciousness of guilt.

 

This is exactly right.

[Pent08]

> @bladehunter said:

> > @Pent08 said:

> > > @blink3665 said:

> > > Can an employee sue for discrimination if they are fired for being an alcoholic? I thought that substance abuse was protected by the law. (I'm just looking for more clarity. I'm not pushing on this argument in either direction.)

> >

> > You can't be fired for simply being an alcoholic. That's as far as that goes. So yes, an employer can be sued for discriminating on the basis of a disability.

>

> Is that in any state ? Not talking an actual handicapped person. But an alcoholic. While I agree some people are predisposed to being easily addicted , I fail to see how it’s listed as a disability. And therefore covered by the Americans with disabilities act. If that’s the case guys who love chocolate cake and weigh 600 lbs have Job. security too. For Pete’s sake.

>

> Edit. I refuse to believe that you can’t fire base on alcoholic status. Truck drivers can be , cops should be , teachers etc. Plenty of jobs subject to drug/alcohol screening at random.

 

"Courts generally agree that an employee suffering from alcohlism has "a physical or mental impairment." They do not always agree, however, that such an employee's major life activities are substantially limited by his condition. This requires proof, usually supplied by the plaintiff, that meets the statutory requirements. That is, the plaintiff must show that his disability (alcoholism) substantially limits one or more of his major life activities. Nevertheless, in most cases, the court will find, or the employer will concede, that an alcoholic employee has a "disability" within the meaning of the ADA." - warshawskylawfirm.com

 

As far as drug testing, I would assume that an alcoholic, even qualified as disabled, would still be subject to termination if the BAC levels were sufficiently high enough. If their drinking affects their ability to perform work duties, it's all the same.

[hammer1]

> @JaNelson38 said:

> Welcome to the world in 2019: where everything wrong with you is someone else's fault, and nobody bears any responsibility for their own life whatsoever.

>

> Hilarious how the people suing are claiming that his employer was an enabler because he didnt tell his employee how to live his life when he wasn't on company time. Also hilarious that the family claims the guy killed was known to have an alcohol problem, but worked as...a bartender. That's like having someone who is addicted to painkillers or prescription drugs work in a pharmacy.

>

> EDIT: the sad part is, if Tiger or his restaurant manager had fired this person because they knew he had a drinking problem like this family claims, they would guaranteed be getting sued for wrongful termination.

>

> Plaintiffs and lawyers should start getting fined by judges if a judge finds that a lawsuit is frivolous. That would start to put an end to this lawsuit-happy era real quick.

 

It’s rather disturbing that you find any aspect of this tragedy to be “hilarious.” A guy died for crying out loud. I’m all in favor of bearing responsibility for your actions. But that’s a two way street. Owners of bars and restaurants who knowingly over-serve customers or allow their employees to overindulge (either white they are working or after they punch out or both) must also bear responsibility for their actions. That’s why there are dram shop laws. And it’s not about an owner or employer being required to tell someone how to live his or her life. It’s about the owner’s legal obligation to control the consumption of alcohol on the premises. That’s what the owner agreed to do in exchange for being granted a liquor license. If you can’t stand the heat. . .

As to so-called “frivolous” lawsuits, there are plenty of judges who would have considered landmark civil rights cases such as Brown v. Board of Education to be frivolous. Fortunately, that’s not how the system works.

 

 

 

 

[Krt22]

Love me some virtue signaling

[buckeyefl]

> @Dpavs said:

> I think we all probably lack sufficient information at this point to say whether the suit is frivolous or not but, if I get the jest of the post so far correctly-

> Basically the consensus is that laws that allow this kind of law suit are bad as applied to Tiger but up until now, the same laws which have been around for quite some time and which require social responsibility regarding the dispensing of alcohol made some sense... did I get it right?

> Well I am glad to see there is consistency in these TW threads anyway.

 

Actually you got it wrong. The laws are ridiculous in many ways and the name on the business is irrelevant. It just so happens this is a golf forum so it becomes visible Because of who is involved. Go to a site that covers the topic and you will see plenty of people complaining about some of these silly laws and ambulance chasing lawyers. Maybe read the early post about the lack of personal responsibility.

 

Since you seemed concerned, personally unless the establishment holds a fun to someone's head and forces them to start drinking then they certainly aren't to blame for people's irresponsible, inconsiderate and dangerous life choices. I'm sure plenty of people feel the same especially if they have been on the side that has to protect a business against these idiots.

[Dpavs]

> @Krt22 said:

> > @Dpavs said:

> > I think we all probably lack sufficient information at this point to say whether the suit is frivolous or not but, if I get the jest of the post so far correctly-

> > Basically the consensus is that laws that allow this kind of law suit are bad as applied to Tiger but up until now, the same laws which have been around for quite some time and which require social responsibility regarding the dispensing of alcohol made some sense... did I get it right?

> > Well I am glad to see there is consistency in these TW threads anyway.

>

> I cant see the validity in any lawsuit that essentially says a fully grown adult should not be held responsible for their own actions.

 

The laws we are talking about of course do not in any way make anyone less responsible for their own actions. They simply require social responsibility for those who would serve alcohol to the public. If we took your stated position one step further, should gun shops be able to sell guns to just anyone simply because everyone should be accountable for their own actions? Or why have laws regulating consumption by minors? While all of these are obviously not precisely the same, they are based on similar principles. In essence all of these types of laws are aimed at requiring a level of responsibility on the part of certain types of retailers in order to protect or benefit the community as a whole. I for one am thankful for the concept of a "common good" and the laws which foster and protect it.

[Dpavs]

> @Potatohead said:

> > @Dpavs said:

> > I think we all probably lack sufficient information at this point to say whether the suit is frivolous or not but, if I get the jest of the post so far correctly-

> > Basically the consensus is that laws that allow this kind of law suit are bad as applied to Tiger but up until now, the same laws which have been around for quite some time and which require social responsibility regarding the dispensing of alcohol made some sense... did I get it right?

> > Well I am glad to see there is consistency in these TW threads anyway.

>

> I'm not picking that up, really at all, most people aren't even including TW in the discussion.

> I mean the analogy earlier of a fat dude ordering a hamburger and the restaurant obliging is basically bang on. Although I guess in this case it would be a cook who stayed late and ate a bunch of ham sandwiches and then his heart exploded.

 

I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I don't think there is any similarity in the two at all. There is no scientific, statistical or other evidence I am aware of that people who over eat are inherently more dangerous when they drive or are more prone to violent conduct... but I could be wrong..lol!

[Krt22]

The laws and this lawsuit are two very different things. This is a civil lawsuit, aka a money grab. No criminal charges were filed.

 

Not touching the rest of your response with a 10ft pole.

[BiggErn]

> @Dpavs said:

> > @Krt22 said:

> > > @Dpavs said:

> > > I think we all probably lack sufficient information at this point to say whether the suit is frivolous or not but, if I get the jest of the post so far correctly-

> > > Basically the consensus is that laws that allow this kind of law suit are bad as applied to Tiger but up until now, the same laws which have been around for quite some time and which require social responsibility regarding the dispensing of alcohol made some sense... did I get it right?

> > > Well I am glad to see there is consistency in these TW threads anyway.

> >

> > I cant see the validity in any lawsuit that essentially says a fully grown adult should not be held responsible for their own actions.

>

> The laws we are talking about of course do not in any way make anyone less responsible for their own actions. They simply require social responsibility for those who would serve alcohol to the public. If we took your stated position one step further, should gun shops be able to sell guns to just anyone simply because everyone should be accountable for their own actions? Or why have laws regulating consumption by minors? While all of these are obviously not precisely the same, they are based on similar principles. In essence all of these types of laws are aimed at requiring a level of responsibility on the part of certain types of retailers in order to protect or benefit the community as a whole. I for one am thankful for the concept of a "common good" and the laws which foster and protect it.

 

If he had been pulled over and gotten a DUI he would have been held solely responsible. Since he got drunk, drove, and died in an accident his family wants to hold somebody else (somebody wealthy) responsible.

[bladehunter]

> @BiggErn said:

> > @Dpavs said:

> > > @Krt22 said:

> > > > @Dpavs said:

> > > > I think we all probably lack sufficient information at this point to say whether the suit is frivolous or not but, if I get the jest of the post so far correctly-

> > > > Basically the consensus is that laws that allow this kind of law suit are bad as applied to Tiger but up until now, the same laws which have been around for quite some time and which require social responsibility regarding the dispensing of alcohol made some sense... did I get it right?

> > > > Well I am glad to see there is consistency in these TW threads anyway.

> > >

> > > I cant see the validity in any lawsuit that essentially says a fully grown adult should not be held responsible for their own actions.

> >

> > The laws we are talking about of course do not in any way make anyone less responsible for their own actions. They simply require social responsibility for those who would serve alcohol to the public. If we took your stated position one step further, should gun shops be able to sell guns to just anyone simply because everyone should be accountable for their own actions? Or why have laws regulating consumption by minors? While all of these are obviously not precisely the same, they are based on similar principles. In essence all of these types of laws are aimed at requiring a level of responsibility on the part of certain types of retailers in order to protect or benefit the community as a whole. I for one am thankful for the concept of a "common good" and the laws which foster and protect it.

>

> If he had been pulled over and gotten a DUI he would have been held solely responsible. Since he got drunk, drove, and died in an accident his family wants to hold somebody else (somebody wealthy) responsible.

 

That’s the absolute truth.

 

As for This type money grab being equated to landmark civil rights cases and gun laws. That’s completely , totally , what’s wrong with the whole system.

 

Dram laws are in fact enablers for lawsuits like this. And are nonsense. If alcohol is that dangerous. Ban it. Since they won’t , then put the onus squarely on the person drinking and driving.

 

 

[DatSliceDoe]

Completely frivolous suit imo.

[third-times-a-charm]

It's a money-grab lawsuit filed by an ambulance-chaser attorney. Its pretty 'standard' so to speak as far as these types of cases are concerned.

 

These scum lawyers will look for DUI death cases and then contact the family saying they can get money from the establishment they last left where they drank at.

 

Its disgusting.

[Potatohead]

> @Dpavs said:

> > @Potatohead said:

> > > @Dpavs said:

> > > I think we all probably lack sufficient information at this point to say whether the suit is frivolous or not but, if I get the jest of the post so far correctly-

> > > Basically the consensus is that laws that allow this kind of law suit are bad as applied to Tiger but up until now, the same laws which have been around for quite some time and which require social responsibility regarding the dispensing of alcohol made some sense... did I get it right?

> > > Well I am glad to see there is consistency in these TW threads anyway.

> >

> > I'm not picking that up, really at all, most people aren't even including TW in the discussion.

> > I mean the analogy earlier of a fat dude ordering a hamburger and the restaurant obliging is basically bang on. Although I guess in this case it would be a cook who stayed late and ate a bunch of ham sandwiches and then his heart exploded.

>

> I guess we'll just agree to disagree. I don't think there is any similarity in the two at all. There is no scientific, statistical or other evidence I am aware of that people who over eat are inherently more dangerous when they drive or are more prone to violent conduct... but I could be wrong..lol!

 

Well I think that mainly matters how much Taco Bell you or your passengers have had to eat in the last few hours

[Potatohead]

Oh and I wish I could be a fly on the wall the day TW’s lawyer(s) meet up with this guy.

[golfgirlrobin]

> @PoolPond said:

> > @Potatohead said:

> > > @bscinstnct said:

> > > I think no way TW let's this get too far. They may sue for like $50MM. Maybe TW settle for $5-10MM?

> > >

> > > Then, if destroyed evidence? That's not good, criminal matter, I suppose. Jupiter could be done?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > 5-10M come on they (meaning the resturant) will settle out of court for $300k and everyone will move on with life.

> >

> > The problem with stuff like this is you're rewarding bad behaviour, and that's why it continues.

>

> TW won't settle for anything. His insurance company will settle and it will be the absolute easiest money this families attorney will have made all year. Tiger has a liability policy. The FIRST question their attorney will ask for is their policy. If it's a typical 1/3 million policy they will say 1 million should cover it. The insurance company will counter with 15K then they will start negotiating and the family and their attorney will walk away with an undisclosed amount, which means 300K.

 

Doubt it will be that easy. Negotiations will have already started before the complaint was filed; if it was going to be that straight forward, they’d have settled already with an attached non-disclosure agreement, no formal complaint would have been filed and no one would have ever known it happened. If someone deleted security footage, the plaintiffs are in a really strong position and they know it. Not getting out for $300k if someone actually did that.

 

Also have to wonder if knowingly destroying evidence would nullify your contract with your insurance company. There’d be a pretty easy argument to be made that you’ve acted in bad faith. Tiger may end up in the unenviable position of being the defendant in one suit and the plaintiff in another.