Comments on: Restaurant found 55 percent responsible, actual attackers 45 percent

By: John Rohan

John Rohan — Wed, 22 Jul 2015 23:37:27 +0000

What happens when the civil jury comes to a different conclusion than the criminal trial did? That must have happened here, after all, the attackers went to prison, not the restaurant owners!!

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:30:01 +0000

I’m curious how they established that the minor ordered the beer, as opposed to the 27 year old then allowing the minor to drink from his order. At a guess (pure speculation), someone at the table ordered two pitchers of beer after two glasses had been served? (each pitcher being the equivalent of five 12 oz glasses of beer, typically). Even so, if the alcohol wasn’t actually consumed, emphasis on the amount ordered would only seem to inflame passions, not be particularly relevant to how drunk someone was.

I can’t help but feel (again, without any evidence one way or the other) that the restaurant’s liability here as determined by the jury had more to do with the depths of their pockets than their actual culpability in the events.

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Tue, 21 Jul 2015 15:47:58 +0000

Note, however, the precise if not lawyerly wording in the Riverside paper’s account: “the equivalent of” 12 servings of alcohol were “ordered,” not consumed. (Pitchers, maybe?) And the perpetrator who seems to have played the greater role in the death — he got the longer sentence of the two, and was initially charged with murder — was 27 years old.

http://www.pe.com/articles/riverside-771027-jordan-tgi.html

By: CarLitGuy

CarLitGuy — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:14:25 +0000

I find it incredible that an “obviously intoxicated” drinker, underage or otherwise, could consume 12 drinks in 30 minutes and then hit anything other than the floor…

By: Richard

Richard — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:02:46 +0000

The test in California is foreseeability of the criminal conduct based on past incidents. Here, there was evidence of a history of assaults and a lack of basic measures such as security cameras. Separate from that, the action was also based on the claim that the defendant served the obviously intoxicated underage perpetrator 12 drinks in a 30 minute period and had a history of serving minors to increase their weekend business.

By: great unknown

great unknown — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 16:10:18 +0000

In reply to Mathew Knudson.

Everyone – other than governmental and quasi-governmental organizations – is required to hire security. Of course, hiring security may turn out to be illegal under local regulations, but that’s no excuse.

This is OC. If you’re wondering how they merited such a corrupt DA and police force, you need look no farther than the ethics of the population.

By: Mathew Knudson

Mathew Knudson — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 12:27:21 +0000

Wait, so if I should decide to go to a local diner and stab the patrons, it is somehow more than 0% the diner’s fault for not anticipating this and hiring security? Where exactly is the line? Is 7-11 obliged to hire security? The local bus station?

By: E-Bell

E-Bell — Mon, 20 Jul 2015 11:42:26 +0000

They are lucky. In some states, the restaurant owner would not be permitted to shift any blame at all to the perpetrators.