Beverage Management
Dram Shop Acts refers to a legal term that governs all the bars, taverns and other alcoholic beverage dealers in the united states (Knippenberg, 2013). The law pronounces liability to alcoholic dealers who may sell alcohol to intoxicated persons or minors when an injury or an accident is encountered as a result of drunkenness of their customer. The laws in this act are meant to protect the general public from the troubles that result to serving of alcoholic drinks to intoxicated persons or minors in the society. From the example of o the customer served in the LUXBAR, the first four drinks made the customer to become intoxicated. The bartender continued to offer the customer two more Manhattans which worsened the state of the customer. When the drunken man causes an accident to the woman, the bartender is therefore liable for the accident incurred when his customer was driving.
Common Law Liability refers to a tort or a responsibility in the jurisdiction of the common law that causes suffering, harm or loss to someone in an unfair way (EPSTEIN, 2016). The legal reliability demands the tortfeasor to be held responsible of his or her actions. From the case of LUXBAR, the bartender causes the third party; the injured woman to suffer because of the way of offering more drinks to his customer to a level of unconsciousness. The bartender is therefore liable for the injuries encountered by the woman. The Common Law Liability is meant therefore to give every citizen a duty of care to everyone regardless of whether there is a close relationship or not (EPSTEIN, 2016).
It is very difficult for the injured woman to win the dram shp case because proving or making a conviction that the injury was caused by the bartender is not easy. However, the woman being the plaintiff can succeed in suing the bar only when she proves that the defendant or the bartender was negligence. Proving that the bartender was negligent means that she must prove that the bartender continued to serve the patron with more Manhattans with the knowledge that the customer was intoxicated. The woman has to show that the bartender was reckless such that he served unreasonable amount of alcoholic drinks to the customer. The issue of recklessness comes in when the bartender is in full conscious and in full knowledge of the customers state and still continues to serve more drinks to him. Since the bartender in this case was in his right mind, the woman can successfully sue the bar. Other evidences that can help the case to be successful is the fact that the bartender served a customer who was already intoxicated. All this evidences support the claim of negligence and therefore the plaintiff is likely to win the case against the bar (Knippenberg, 2013).
With reference to the Dram Shop Acts, the bartender should be sued. If the woman gathers all the required evidence against the bartender, the plaintiff is potentially capable of suing the bartender. The other reason why the bartender should be sued is because his action is intentional. He is not able to resist himself from serving the customer despite of him being aware of how intoxicated the customer is. The Dram shop Acts is a newly introduced law and therefore this bartender should become a lesson to other concerning the law. For the sake of justice, the bartender should be sued (Knippenberg, 2013).
Rose had a legal obligation to effectively manage this group of rowdy drunkards which would demand her several wise steps to ensure that the intoxicated group was properly handle. The first step would be to distinguish between the colleges grads who were intoxicated (Miron, 2005). In this step, there is no magic formula that would be required because any person who is drunk posses more extensive behaviors such as shouting or speaking in a loud speech, slurred speech and other aggressive behaviors. Having identified them, rose would find a polite way of cutting the off (McMurran, 2013). In this case she would consult one of the sober colleagues who would help them to calm down. It is easy for them to respond to their fellow rather Rose calling security guard or rather the manager himself. Drunks can spot fear and therefore Rose should remain courageous and confident. With the help of the sober colleague, she can engage them in a positive conversation that will keep them occupied and distracted from their rowdy. Rose is therefore able to cut them off in a peaceful way which is the most efficient method she could apply.
Considering that Steve was the bartender, he made several mistakes concerning the actions he took and the actions he would have taken to calm the group. The first mistake is seen when he leaves the responsibility of handling the grads to Rose. He fails to give a directive measure that could best handle the case by just nodding his head in acceptance. He also made a mistake of withdrawing from his obligation of cutting off the noisy group. He would have handled the matters in a better way than Rose but he decided to leave. Escaping from a trouble rather than finding solution was the worst mistake he made (McMurran, 2013).
Managers have a duty to play in maintain a responsible alcohol service. First they should familiarize themselves with the laws that regulate the selling of alcohol especially the Dram Shop Acts (Miron, 2005). These acts provide limits to which they should offer their services and actions they should take to handle scandals of this type. They should also comply with these laws by denying their customers those services that go beyond the required boundary. Managers should also adhere to the age policies that restrict the minors from taking alcohol. It would also be advisable for managers to have a diary of incidences such as fights or arguments. This will help the manager to put measures that will prevent the occurrence of the same incidences. Proper filing of the records should also be considered because of any legal actions that may be taken (Miron, 2005).
In case a third party would suffer as a result of the group, Rose and generally the bar would be liable for the loss or damage. The potential issues that expose them to liability are: serving more drinks to already intoxicated college grads. They would also be liable for noise pollution if the neighbors would ignite complain to the authorities. The other issue would be any complain posted by the college authorities concerning their students. If the college comes to realize the state of their students, it would definitely sue the bar.
References
Miron, A. (2005). The professional bar & beverage manager's handbook: How to open and operate a financially successful bar, tavern and nightclub. Ocala, FL: Atlantic Pub. Group.
McMurran, M. (2013). Alcohol-related violence: Prevention and treatment.
Knippenberg, F. S. (2013). RE-PURPOSING DRAM SHOP LAW TO SUBORDINATE THE CLAIMS OF RECKLESS BARTENDERS OF CREDIT DRUNKS: IN BANKRUPTCY, THIS ONE SHOULD BE ON THE HOUSE. University Of Louisville Law Review, 52(1), 39-65.
EPSTEIN, R. A. (2016). Returning to Common-Law Principles of Insider Trading After United States v. Newman. Yale Law Journal, 125(5), 1482-1530.
