Doug PollardCurbing the Tosspots & Profiteers
In the USA, where mass public drunkenness – except at certain special events, like Spring Break – is relatively uncommon, there are Acts, that “impose civil liability upon one who sells intoxicating liquors when a third party has been injured as a result of the purchaser’s intoxication and such sale has either caused or contributed to the state of intoxication.”
Under these acts, the seller of alcohol can be sued by anyone who is injured by a person who got drunk on the alcohol they were sold.
The pub, bar, club or restaurant can be sued not only for personal injuries and property damage resulting directly from the actions of the drunken person (such as those resulting from drunken driving or Assault and Battery) but also for the loss of family support owing to such injuries.
Generally, the person who got drunk can't sue the seller if s/he is injured, nor can anyone who was drinking with them.
This law is based on the principle that anyone who profits from the sale of alcohol should be held liable for any resulting damage - not a bad principle.
It's not necessary to show that the seller was negligent, just that they sold alcohol to a person who had already had enough, which is generally illegal in itself.
In other words, if you stagger out of a bar drunk, get into a fight, and injure someone, that person can sue the owner of the place where you got your last drink(s).
It seems to me this would be a useful addition to the armoury when battling public drunkenness, and would make bar staff much more careful about enforcing the rules around the responsible service of alcohol.
