Quote:
Originally Posted by fatlazyless
...As a licensed premise, the Mount Washington has a legal obligation to follow the rules of their license...By shutting someone off at the bar, it means the licensed premise is not making a sale and the bartender is not making a tip, so there is plenty incentive here for them to keep pouring those drinks...Hey, put me on the jury and the owner of The Mount will have to trade in his new Mercedes Benz for an old Geo Tracker with a leaky soft-top!
|
RSA 179:5 Prohibited Sales is the applicable statute covering the criminal liability for serving intoxicants to an underage or intoxicated individual.
I am sure the State of New Hampshire through the various agencies that investigated this tragic death completely examined that particular liability. If indeed any State agency had found enough evidence after the investigation, including the results of the autopsy that had risen to the level of probable cause then the appropriate parties would have faced a felony indictment under this statute.
No such indictment or allegation was made by the State, therefore criminal liability was not found in this case and this statute does not apply.
Under our legal system individuals have a right to bring action in civil court. The restrictions limiting the who’s, what’s and whys are limited for good reason; common folk should have unfettered access to the Courts.
I have the utmost sympathy for this man’s family and not having any access except to a simple and broad one page filing, I nor you have any idea what information the family may or may not have in regards to this particular case.
To date there has been presented by no one any credible evidence, whether criminal or civil, that the crew, staff or owners of the MV Mount Washington had conducted themselves in any culpable manner. To imply so, however slightly with a statement such as “…By shutting someone off at the bar, it means the licensed premise is not making a sale and the bartender is not making a tip, so there is plenty incentive here for them to keep pouring those drinks…” is in my opinion callous at best and plain mean spirited at worse.
I am also perplexed by your comment “…Hey, put me on the jury and the owner of The Mount will have to trade in his new Mercedes Benz for an old Geo Tracker with a leaky soft-top!...” What, besides pure envy, does it matter what kind of vehicle is allegedly owned by anyone here?
I have no patience whatsoever with frivolous lawsuits. And if this particular litigation turns out to be such, I will surely be joined by many in condemning its introduction.
But I will show enough respect to the widow and the family to at least give them the momentary benefit of the doubt, as I also do for the crew and owners of the M/V.
As a final thought, isn’t it interesting that you are very eager to cast doubt on the crew of the M/V Mount Washington in this alleged alcohol related incident. I can think of another infamous alcohol related incident where in that instance in your numerous posted opinions you never mentioned the liability or responsibility of the bar/restaurant where the guilty party had imbibed last, you chose to blame the incident on the “type of boat involved”.
At least you are consistent…in being inconsistent!
In any case....Merry Christmas,
Skip