16 employees of Clublink have been charged with liquor infractions in the death of 3 young men who drowned last year.
Clublink Charged
- Thread starter Rockslinger
- Start date
I have a problem with this one, if they did feed them too much booze they should be charged with manslaughter, this charge reeks of well we have to do something. Proving that they fed them to much booze is going to be a big problem
Tragic end, but charging a bar for patrons getting drunk? There's such a thing as personal responsibility - that is why drivin drunk is a crime. How many tens of thousands of people get drunk in bars accross Ontario every nite. Seems as tho someone else always has to be at fault other than the obvious.
landscaper said:
Wow, this is serious. Manslaughter is 3rd degree murder. Sounds rather severe for selling someone too much liquor. This would affect every restaurant, bar, SC's, etc. in Ontario.
Don't know all the details yet but it appears that individual employees were charged. Can you imagine your daughter working as a part-time waitress getting charged with 3rd murder for serving drinks to some idiots who can't control themselves?
Rockslinger said:
Actually manslaughter refers to doing something that results in the death somebody. The law already forces bars and hosts to be responsible for the drinking of patrons, the problem here is how do you prove they drank everything they ordered or if indeed they were drunck. Its a very difficult test to prove.
16 people? Who are they? I assume the bartenders, but are there executives and other managers charged as well? Obviously the club carries liability insurance. It will be interesting to see if charges to individuals will stick, if they do, you'll probably see a lot of bartenders quitting.
We seriously need to overhaul our legal system & introduce the concept of personal acountability.
Whatever appens to you on account of your own stupidity/criminal actions is soley your fault.
- "but he was too drunk to know wen to stop... they just kept feeding him booze"
- Umm.... at some point before he got that drunk he could have stopped himself. Darwin
Same thing as if a burglar gets hurt in your property he can SUE!
Why sensible people haven't started lynching judges in this country is beyond me.
Whatever appens to you on account of your own stupidity/criminal actions is soley your fault.
- "but he was too drunk to know wen to stop... they just kept feeding him booze"
- Umm.... at some point before he got that drunk he could have stopped himself. Darwin
Same thing as if a burglar gets hurt in your property he can SUE!
Why sensible people haven't started lynching judges in this country is beyond me.
massman said:
There is also such a thing as the Liquor Licence Act, which makes it an offence to serve a patron who appears intoxicated, or for a licencee to permit drunkenness on the premises. All serving staff are supposed to be trained in SmartServe to recognize when someone has had too much and cut them off, and they are also supposed to take steps to insure that people aren't driving home.
Personal responsibility cuts both ways. Yes, the kids shouldn't have had so much to drink, but the server should have cut them off before they got to that point. And who do you think was in a better position to make a judgment call? My money's on the sober server.
themexi said:
And now the staff will learn that the SmartServe course they all took wasn't just for show, and they should have done their jobs. Actions indeed have consequences.
Maybe because they're sensible? I love it...you complain about the state of the law and in the same breath advocate an anarchic violent retaliation against people who aren't the problem.
Looks like it was executives/directors/managers who were charged. All I will say is that I knew some of people @ Clublink - and most on the list are solid stand up, very fair and professional people.
I'm sorry that this has happened to them and will be curious to see were this goes? At the same time - it is every servers, bartenders, and managers, business/corporations, etc. responsibility (smart serve) to know when to say when. I have personally cut-off patrons/members/guests many time & trained staff to do the same. Most people get upset / yell at you or the staff / threaten your job etc. but at then end of the day you have to do whats right. 80% of the time the person that was cut-off called or thanked me personally & the staff for giving a shit about their safety.
I'm sorry that this has happened to them and will be curious to see were this goes? At the same time - it is every servers, bartenders, and managers, business/corporations, etc. responsibility (smart serve) to know when to say when. I have personally cut-off patrons/members/guests many time & trained staff to do the same. Most people get upset / yell at you or the staff / threaten your job etc. but at then end of the day you have to do whats right. 80% of the time the person that was cut-off called or thanked me personally & the staff for giving a shit about their safety.
massman said:
I cannot agree enough with you. When i worked the club scene here in Toronto, i worked my ass off making sure my customers got home in a cab; to the point of covering fares myself at times. Under the liquor licensing act, i could not serve a patron that was visibly intoxicated. The onus should not be put on the establishment whatsoever. People should conduct themselves accordingly and take a bloody cab if you plan on getting hammered.
themexi said:
I beleive this only refers to the laws of the US in reference to your statement about burglers. but, i could be wrong.
thompo69 said:
Good observation. i have to say, as an adult people should have enough sense to be responsible. If you can wake up everyday, get dressed and comprehend the world around you, there is no need for a waitress to babysit someone because they cannot act appropriately.
Angela, I fully agree with you that that adult patrons have responsibility.
However, if staff are giving 4 young adults over 30 drinks over a few hours, and (my assumption) they are clearly wasted, should there not be SOME responsibility on the part of the staff to stop serving them and to ensure that they don't jump into a car (or a boat)?
Just because the patrons bear most of the burden doesn't mean that the staff can act irresponsibly
However, if staff are giving 4 young adults over 30 drinks over a few hours, and (my assumption) they are clearly wasted, should there not be SOME responsibility on the part of the staff to stop serving them and to ensure that they don't jump into a car (or a boat)?
Just because the patrons bear most of the burden doesn't mean that the staff can act irresponsibly
Clublink
An employee of an establishment who serves an intoxicated patron or someone who even APPEARS to be intoxicated is liable and can be charged under Ontario's Liqour Licence Act as can the establishment itself. They can also lose the License to serve alcohol for a period of time laid down by the Gov't.
This is done as a deterrant to assist the combat against impaired driving.
I worked part time as a F&B Mgr. at a major Ontario Racetrack-Casino and can vouch for this information We had a very low tolerance for intoxicated patrons just for that reason. The Inspectors are always around day and night now that most Casinos are open 24-7 with booze stopped being served at 130-200 am. Its not in the best interest of any establishment to RISK losing a Liquor Lic. as its a big $$ maker.
An employee of an establishment who serves an intoxicated patron or someone who even APPEARS to be intoxicated is liable and can be charged under Ontario's Liqour Licence Act as can the establishment itself. They can also lose the License to serve alcohol for a period of time laid down by the Gov't.
This is done as a deterrant to assist the combat against impaired driving.
I worked part time as a F&B Mgr. at a major Ontario Racetrack-Casino and can vouch for this information We had a very low tolerance for intoxicated patrons just for that reason. The Inspectors are always around day and night now that most Casinos are open 24-7 with booze stopped being served at 130-200 am. Its not in the best interest of any establishment to RISK losing a Liquor Lic. as its a big $$ maker.
