(Believe me, I was surprised to learn this [in the training I had to go through to serve alcohol—even though I am not a bartender, I had to go through the course to be able to serve], otherwise I theoretically would be able to drink a whole lot {at 6’1″, 380 lbs.}. I don’t drink simply because I never got the taste for alcohol, and it’s a whole lot more expensive drink-for-drink compared to soda.)

>If a drunk husband beats his wife, I don’t think there is a part of the statutes (at least in Florida) which say the husband serves less time because he was drunk than a non-drunk abuser.
[end of quote]

Some 20 or 30 years ago, a death penalty appeal raising this question went up to the USSC– whether because the defendant was drunk (or stoned), he deserved a lesser penalty because he [may have] had lesser criminal intent. The USSC rejected this argument.
(I tried to find it with a Google search, but got a flood of cites involving representation by drunken lawyers.)

I might have been willing to accept an impairment doctrine if the USSC applied it in both directions: the first time someone commits a crime while “under the influence,” they would get a reduced penalty. Said reduction, however, would bring permanent notice to stay away from intoxicants that might reduce inhibitions against criminality. For any future crimes, intoxication would be considered an *aggravating* factor.

I only ask because the only two people I personally know who’ve got done for drink driving have been (a) a woman in our neighborhood who drove up onto a curb at 3:30pm, and was found to have been drinking at home before picking up her kids at school; and (b) a co-worker who got dinged driving home a few blocks from a friend’s barbecue.

What proportion of drink drivers are we actually going to get off the roads by deputizing bar & restaurant personnel as “drink driving police”?

Given that women often weigh less than men, and that alcohol often affects women more strongly than it does men, do barkeeps also need to have different standards for women vs. men?

Who’s going to be the first to shriek #WarOnWomen! when a bar starts taking the keys of their female patrons after just 1 drink, but lets their male patrons have 3 before they demand the keys?

And do fat chicks get more leeway? “Excuse me, ma’am, do you mind stepping onto this scale? Oh, okay, you weight 175. We’ll let you have one more drink before we take your keys off you”.

And what if someone is also on some kind of medication that exacerbates the effects of alcohol? Or has “pre-gamed” by having several drinks at home before going out?

Or what about a shiftworker stopping in for a couple of beers on his or her way home? Someone having two beers after having been up all night might be more affected than normal “happy hour” patrons.

It’s just too complicated. And some female or racial minority who feels they’ve been “unjustly targeted” is going to sue, that’s a given.

It’s just an unworkable idea.

Listen, I do realize there are going to be factual problems. I once wrote a blog post many years ago opposing dram shop laws for this very reason. ( I tried to find it to reference it for you but couldn’t find it. But I swear it exists somewhere.) But times change and I think the drunk driving problem has reached a critical mass where we have to try something different. Because we are no longer making any progress. It is like we are repeatedly looking for our car keys in the same drawer over and over again. These commercials and billboards telling us not to drink and drive are just not working.

You see it as a “lawyer trying to get into deep pockets” issue. I’m sure there is some truth to that. But with good dram shop laws, the joke is on the plaintiffs’ bar because less drunk driving deaths is going to have a bigger impact on our bottom line than the few times we can make a dram shop case.

Actually, that is 20 drinks. But let’s call it 10 just for fun. Mr. Brown, you think it is possible this guy was not drunk? Is there anyone out there – anyone at all – who agrees with this?

Here’s another question: forget the law, does anyone think that it is not immoral to continue to serve someone under this scenario?

I have also to be convinced that this is little more than casting around for someone with deep pockets/insurance to sue.

Are you sure of your figures / conclusion?

The chart at the site you reference doesn’t go as high as 17 drinks, but I am not sure you need to.

At 10 drinks for a 200 pound man, the chart shows a BAC of 0.19. As per the instructions, you subtract 0.01% for every 40 minutes of drinking. In this case, that would be a deduction of less than 0.08%. (5 hours = 300 minutes divided by 40 minutes is 7.5 multiplied by 0.01 is 0.075. )

That’s a final BAC of 0.115 with only 10 drinks of 18 in the formula.

If you throw all of the numbers and time into this BAC “calculator”

http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/#LinkURL

the estimated BAC level is 0.281%

Respectfully, I think your number is low.

Is there any evidence that the drunk driver in this case was “over served”?

One of the things I noted when I read this editorial (and wrote about it on my blog) was that the drunk driver supposedly had 17 beers and 1 shot over a five hour period. That’s roughly 3.6 drinks an hour, assuming they were equally distributed over that time. Assuming that he weighed 200 pounds, according to this chart:

http://www.brad21.org/bac_charts.html

he’d be right on the border between 0.06 and 0.08.

I realize there are a lot of assumptions in the above, but that’s because we don’t have the information. We also don’t know what his actual BAC was, because he apparently fled the scene and was arrested 12 hours after the accident.

While I agree with the sentiment, instead of increasing insurance costs (which no matter how well intentioned will be spread out over every driver or result in more people driving without insurance), to me a better solution is to increase penalties for driving while intoxicated (and the resultant damage.)

I realize there is a concept that says a drunk cannot form the intent to commit a criminal act, but I would argue the the intent is formed when the first drink is taken. People know the outcome of drinking too much. In the case which forms the basis of the original post, the patron admitted he went to the bar to get drunk. I have a hard time not seeing that as “intent.”

Furthermore, I can’t find the same exception for “intent” in such crimes as domestic violence. If a drunk husband beats his wife, I don’t think there is a part of the statutes (at least in Florida) which say the husband serves less time because he was drunk than a non-drunk abuser.

I hate to say this, but I wonder if the argument for blaming the server(s) has roots in being able to sue more people than just the petson who committed the act.