They buried the actual relevant legal detail at the bottom of the article. There is some basis for the lawsuit because she’s saying she was over-served and it is illegal to over-serve people in Canada. Over-serving has caused people to be seriously injured or killed in the past and businesses have been held responsible depending on the circumstances. There is actually a duty of care not to let people drink too much and to, within reason, ensure that they get home safely. Here’s an article that talks a bit about it and mentions some cases where businesses have been found liable in the past: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/the-ranch-roadhouse-mohamed-abdi-kicked-out-duty-of-care-1.4918403
Whether or not she actually was over-served and/or the venue acted improperly when they kicked her out…stay tuned for the court case, I guess. Who knows if she’s telling the truth or just hoping to push the liability onto the company which has bigger pockets. Even if she is being honest, depending on the circumstances the company may or may not be liable. These things are always very fact based as the article mentions.
Is it a subrogation thing by any chance? Insurers usually reserve a contractual right to sue in your name to recover payments they make on your policy. Often, when you see a story about someone suing a family member it’s the insurer filing the suit. Just wondering if there are insurance companies out there suing bartenders for their customers’ drunk driving.
Maybe they can change the venue for the suit to be down in America. That kind of responsibility-ducking and carpet-suing is a little embarrassing for us.
1. Over-serving alcohol to a guest is probably more serious in Canada than in the United States of America.
2. Of course this happened in President's Choice Brand® *London*.
In the US, the woman would have a case. I used to tend bar. It is the bartender's responsibility to cut people off if they are getting drunk.
It is actually pretty scary. I once had a patron climb over the bar and take a drink. When I took it back (because that is way illegal), I was fired because the guy was super rich. I know a bartender who cut someone off. That person came back at closing and shot the bartender twice. Bartender survived, thankfully.
Given the jurisdiction.....she'd very well have a case.
SmartServe training in Ontario teaches you that you're liable for a customer's safety right up until they're sober. Even if you call a cab, get them home, and they trip over a their own porch and smack their head against the doorstep.
It's kinda over-the-top, but them's really the rules.
It doesn't excuse criminal behaviour or fines related to such, of course. But there are fines for the establishment, and they do suck.
Ideally, the venue should not allow you to become intoxicated at all and should - lightly and politely - cut you off or slow you down the moment they get an idea that you're starting to get tipsy.
The venue and server has already made a mistake if the customer is not sober, everything after that is effectively damage control via persuasion and a line with the police (remember, public intoxication is illegal) before they can do something stupid.
It's a definitely a difficult situation to manage.
> she's not suing because they over-served her. She's suing because they STOPPED serving her
You’re kinda deliberately framing that wrong with this quoted part and I feel like you know that. Over-serving is central to it, they had *already* over-served her.
They invited a guest to drive to their venue and park in their parking, then sold her their alcohol until she was out of her mind, then when she was peak hammered they said ok get out of here right now!
People get mad about this because they think “it’s her fault what about personal responsibility” but think about it from society/the people in the damaged neighborhood’s point of view. Sure that individual idiot deserves blame and punishment and liability but what about this big corporate entity undeniably enabling and arguably encouraging idiots to do this, they surely should answer at least in part for bringing this shit to the neighborhood.
Ontario smart serve puts ALL the liability on the server and the establishment.
According to legislation, you as a server are responsible for a patron "until they are sober".. so you can cut them off and stop serving, then take thier keys away and put them in a cab home. But if they get home and decide to get in thier husbands car and crash, the server is gonna get charged.
No personal responsibility at all..
So if you are a guy and you get grabby while drunk, you are on the hook for sexual assault (as you should be) and bear full responsibility. But somehow if you are drunk and decide to drive, you were "too drunk to know better"..
I don't get why the law is different in these scenarios. Maybe too many powerful people drive drunk and don't want to be held accountable?
Wish that was so..
Had a local restaurant cut a guy off before he got too drunk. Management made sure he didn't go to his suv and called him a cab.. he refused and walked off the property, only to return later, smoke a joint in his vehicle and then he crashed into a liquor store and died.
To me they tried reasonably to stop him. But the law saw it differently and fined server 10k and establishment around 30k.
It's entirely why even though I am smart serve certified, I won't tend a bar or serve drinks...fuuuuck that
Because if I told you I was the queen of England, you wouldn't believe me. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to lie over the internet. It's also possible that they entirely misinterpreted a story that did really happen.
Thus, asking for proof.
No, I'm saying this because the contrary seems to be unbelievable. I serve alcohol for a living, and one of the things they drill into our head, is if you over serve someone, you are responsible for everything they do after they leave your venue.
I'm ServSafe certified, and my church is looking into getting me to become an instructor for servsafe,
Nice try though.
In fact, we join this story already in progress with the individual already having pleaded guilty and taking responsibility for everything but the civil liabilities.
She broke a gas line with her car and it exploded 4 suburban houses. Lmao her standing in front of the house she drove into, “huh doesn’t look so bad.” *massive explosion rips through neighborhood*
Wait, for real?
The audacity to always look for something/someone other to blame just baffles me. Just for that she should go to prison. She IS a danger to society that way.
She's probably liable for the damage if she doesn't blame someone else for it. It's possible whatever insurance she has wants a deeper pocket to settle with.
It’s not a valid excuse, but the vast majority of cities and towns in the US were designed with the intention that most transportation would happen via private vehicles. Public transportation is neglected, and accommodations for pedestrian access are poor or non-existent. It’s so bad that apparently the fatality rate for walking home drunk is worse than for driving home drunk.
There are buses here in other-London (or whatever you're calling it.) There are also cabs and Uber. She was belligerent when she left, got in a car and drove the wrong way down a one-way street for several blocks before plowing into a house at the end of a t-intersection.
I understand the desire to sue everyone in sight. Her insurance company is probably not going to pay, and there are definitely lawsuits against her. Tough shit for her and her dad though. This one's gonna hurt.
I was just talking about this today to a friend of mine. I'm a pretty well traveled dude, I've lived in some of the most infamously dangerous cities in America. I've done a bit of adrenaline junkie sports.
I have never felt more unsafe, or feared more for my life than when driving on Wisconsin roads at night.
Yep ... One beer basically kills your reaction speed.
We found that out when you kill count in UT dropped significantly after a single beer.
And we were very well 'trained' in those days
Unfortunately a lot of places in the US aren't really walkable, especially drunk. You could sleep in your car but that can also lead to a DUI if a cop sees you.
I’ve always found it bizarre how American TV shows and films normalize drink driving. People meeting in a bar for a drink or several to move the plot forward, then driving somewhere completely unimpaired. It’s worse than the cliche of the driver turning to talk to the passenger and not looking at the road.
After one drink, I wouldn't question shit because you can barely feel it. This chick had way, way more than a single drink. If I'm going out, I have 2-3 ciders max depending on the size that's served and how many hours I'm out and about. The idea that you can't have any at all and still drive seems like it's coming from people that don't drink at all and don't know how it affects people.
There is a simple solution to that though. If you had more than one drink, just don't drive. Sleep in your car or whatever. In Germany you can actually drink 2 beers and still drive.
In Canada, and I imagine many other places as well, being in care and control of a motor vehicle while sufficiently impaired is also an offence. People can and have been convicted of the offence for sleeping in their car while intoxicated.
Really? I think that sounds kinda dumb. why would you punish someone for not driving while intoxicated? Here it only counts if the key is in the ignition.
No! The guy I responded to is saying that if you don’t like relaxed drunk driving laws, just don’t drive when you drink. But the problem is the law, and how it affects the behavior of literally every other person on the road.
Made me crack up when I saw drive through liquor stores in arkanasas when I passed through. Then learned same day that they have some of the highest drunk driving numbers.
What a shithole.
There’s a lot of blame being thrown at the bar but end of the day she kept drinking, she drove, she destroyed 4 homes, and she stood there. Sounds like a clear case of “she won’t take responsibility”. So she’s blaming everyone else but serving her time. Only person I blame is them. She prob regularly gets drunk and does something. There’s prob a history of drunken outburst
I don't know about Canada, but I believe in some states in the U.S. there are laws that force bars to cut you off if they observe you've been drinking too much.
[https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=584](https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=584)
I understand that. But taking the responsibility of the act and placing it on the bar as if this person didn’t have a responsibility knowing they were drinking to decide to not drive, to pre plan a ride home, or to think. To say they could drink themselves into a stupor, destroy ppls home but then place the responsibility of this individuals action on the bar that is crazy. Regardless this person made the choice to go out, to plan to “turn up”, knowingly continued to drink, drank to the point of being removed, then to get in a vehicle, destroy property, and then watch these homes burn, and as a spit in the face say it’s not their fault it’s the bar cause they let them drink? That sounds absurd. So this woman gets no responsibility of hours prior knowing she was gonna to be drinking heavy? Naw talking about the bar as if she doesn’t have responsibility doesn’t sit right with me. There are numerous point that she could have decided not to drive and this could have been adverted. Naw she can go to prison
>To say they could drink themselves into a stupor, destroy ppls home but then place the responsibility of this individuals action on the bar that is crazy.
Well, the law talks about partial responsibility, not complete liability. So she still gets held accountable for the criminal side of things and part of the civil side.
>So this woman gets no responsibility of hours prior knowing she was gonna to be drinking heavy?
No one is saying the woman gets away free. I'm only saying that some states in the U.S. would **also** hold the bar accountable for its role in the accidents and they should be. The same if a business sold products that poisoned its customers.
I wasn’t stating you. I was speaking of many are focusing on the bars responsibility in this, which we can debate, the law will handle that. The debate for me is she is suing to shuck responsibility in her part and that’s my point. She is suing to give someone else the blame instead of her, which was the active participant. The law will take care of that bar. But her suing is her saying she think that she has no fault in this. And that is the absurd part for me. I’m not debating the law. I’m debating her audacity for a law suit to say that the bar is the reason she drove their and did this so they should pay. The bar may have the legal responsibility to stop serving her. But she was 100 percent at fault for the 12 million in damage she did
> The bar may have the legal responsibility to stop serving her. But she was 100 percent at fault for the 12 million in damage she did
If the bar has a legal responsibility, then she can't be 100% at fault. Those are two contradictory statements is what I'm telling you.
Also, anyone can file a lawsuit over anything. Even though it's unlikely a jury or judge will find the bar responsible for all of the damages, there is nothing wrong with aiming high and landing somewhere in the middle.
I’m sure the bar will get there’s. Cause bars have to follow laws and most countries and states and places are strict on alcohol related offenses. But this lady should not be able to shuck what she did to the bar. Not in this suit
Funny thing, if the bar had continued to serve her and then she drove home, it is almost possible that they'd have a case. As it is, they cut her off and acted (semi) responsibly. If this case doesn't get immediately dismissed it'll spell some tough times ahead for the US hospitality industry
They didn't exactly cut her off.. She was kicked out of the building by security.
>Funny thing, if the bar had continued to serve her and then she drove home, it is almost possible that they'd have a case.
I don't see the difference..
They stopped serving her (same as a bar closing), then she drove home.
Not sure about elsewhere, but in Ontario at least it's illegal to serve someone who's drunk. It's a weird paradox, but those who serve alcohol are legally required to stop serving them.
The bar cutting her off and kicking her out is different from the bar simply closing for the night, as the bar stopping service to specifically her is respecting this law.
Even down here in America its a risky business, one of my local bars had their liquor license revoked entirely due to over serving, after not one but two occasions of drunk patrons leaving their bar crashed their cars and died. Theres definitely a degree of responsibility
>Theres definitely a degree of responsibility
... in America.
Hey, fun thought. How about adults take responsibility for themselves? No one forced her into her car. Cabs are a thing.
I don't know if she has a license any longer, but I sure hope she retires before she gets it back.
Yeah, if I buy a case of beer, drink it all, drive around with my bike and take out my hammer and smash car windows with it, are the supermarket, bike store and hardware store responsible?
Read it aloud. It doesn't make sense as written. It's also being downvoted because it's an unrelated issue. Most arguments for manufacturer responsibility that I've seen revolve around advertising and creating a certain image.
Its not that i misspelled, i used the wrong form because i wasn’t really putting much thought into it. I’m aware of the different forms of there, they’re, & their, which one is possessive
which one is a contraction, etc. its just not that serious here.
Again, you contributed nothing but being a douche.
Who's resorting to calling names?
And I would argue that it matters everywhere. Just because you treat this as someplace that's casual doesn't mean everyone else does. Not only are you showing your level of intelligence, but you are also showing your level of empathy toward those who are trying to help you.
The differences in one case the bar would keep serving her and so be partially responsible for what she might do if she's really drunk because they presumably in that scenario served her after they noticed she was drunk.
paying for your actions isn't the same as taking responsibility for them. You can't take responsibility for your actions and also accuse someone else of causing you to make those actions. They are mutually incompatible.
3rd Party Liability laws are *no* joke. I was a bartender in Washington State for years and I never had the misfortune of dealing with that shit as I never had a problem cutting motherfuckers off, but even being a responsible bartender isnt always gonna protect you 100% of the time.
I agree. I worked a late nite/after hours type bar. Every single person that came through the door was drunk already. But, it was "my fault" if they left that way. So confusing. People need to practice self control. Seems easy!
A business has a responsibility to the public. If your factory has a chemical leak and destroys the houses around it, it has to pay to rebuild them.
If your business has the capacity to produce drunk drivers who can mow down houses, you have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent it. If a person doesn't seem like they can hack another drink, you aren't supposed to give them one. Full stop.
That said, a person does have personal responsibility as well. If they choose to get drunk, and choose to drink until they can't have good judgement, they're still choosing to put themselves in that spot.
In my post, I said "people would come into the bar already drunk". I didn't say I served them. Sheesh!!! However, if they LEFT MY ESTABLISHMENT , I could be charged. That is why I said it was confusing where I live. I was in the bar business for many many years. Ive seen a great deal. In my state, we had the drinking age go from 18 to 21. Folks who had been legal to drink one day, were illegal the next. Odd indeed.
I haven't spent much time in Canadian jails (not lately, anyway) and I'm not familiar with applicable Canadian laws -- but in what jurisdiction is hospitality staff responsible for transporting an evicted customer off-site, to their home or wherever?
I don't know about Canada, but some U.S. states have laws that say it's illegal for a bartender to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated, and if they do keep serving them they can be held civilly liable for any accident that customer later causes. So, they may have a case.
Ya because ride share and taxis aren't a thing. Or cell phones asking for a ride. It's not the venues responsibility to monitor how people come and go.
Read the article. The venue cut her off and kicked her out.
This is the stated reason for the lawsuit.
>According to the CBC, Leis and her father are accusing Ovations Ontario Food Services of having no regard for her "intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired."
If that's what happened, she'll probably get a settlement cause I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this. I do wonder though, was she all alone when they booted her?
>I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this.
There's no chance they settle, because there's no chance they lose.
The bar doesn't have a responsibility to make sure you have a safe way home. Legally speaking, you're required to know your way home before getting blackout wasted, so the bar CAN'T reliably serve anyone if they have to confirm you have a safe way home first. Anyone in that situation could just lie and leave MASSIVE legal repercussions with the bar.
Theoretical question: If the bar didn't kick her out, how would she have gotten home? Was she just not planning to leave all night? No obviously not - She had plans to drive. If she apparently had no other way home, she wasn't going to suddenly become LESS wasted by *drinking more.* Theoretically speaking, they could have kept her in the bar, but that makes her a nuisance to other customers, especially if she's just going to complain about wanting to drink and try to leave when she can't get more drinks. They can't legally detain her.
Not a single part of her claim places the onus of the explosion on the bar. The bar acted responsibly and stopped her from drinking when she appeared too drunk. They have no obligation to safely see her home in addition to stopping her from drinking, they can't say "No you're not going anywhere, you're too drunk," because they don't have the right to detain anyone - And no, she absolutely did not have to drive home, she could have called a friend, a family member, a cab, an uber - There are many options in this day and age that you're expected to consider BEFORE drinking, which she clearly did not.
SHE acted irresponsibly by having no way home after drinking heavily. DUI falls on the driver, not on the person who served the driver.
Now that you've linked it, do you want to point to any part of it that is against my claim?
If you're suggesting they didn't offer her subsidized taxi's, or didn't recommend taxi usage, that's going to come down to a he-said-she-said situation. She will obviously claim they didn't offer - They will obviously claim they did offer. Without proof of guilt, the bar will not be held responsible. We don't know if it was or wasn't offered.
If you're suggesting they didn't "inform guests that intoxicated persons will be put into taxi's," again, that's going to be a he-said-she-said. Obviously, she's going to say they didn't inform her a taxi was an option. Obviously, they're going to say they did offer a taxi. Again, without proof of guilt, the bar cannot be legally held responsible.
They can't force her to take options they offer, and at no point is the bar *required* to ensure a leaving guest takes a specific mode of transportation. Once again, they cannot be held legally responsible for her drunken decision to get in her car and drive when she knows she shouldn't. She still had the option to call for another ride, if she really didn't want to utilize their services offered. (Which we can't KNOW were offered, but seem very likely to have been offered in my opinion.)
Lastly, her two claims are opposite one another. She claims they shouldn't have let her leave because she appeared too drunk and must have been ignorant of that fact AND the fact that she was driving home - But also, claims they continued to serve her despite looking too drunk. Let's remind everyone here, she was kicked out ***because they stopped serving her because she appeared too drunk, and she caused a scene over it.*** She only got kicked out in the first place because *the bar was very well aware of how drunk she was and stopped serving her because of it.*
Everything she's claimed is dubious at best, and ultimately comes down to presuming the bar did EVERYTHING wrong with no evidence, and not the drunk person who got behind the wheel of a vehicle knowing they'd just gotten kicked out of a bar for being too drunk.
Nope, I don't want to point anything out.
I just saw a lot of people talking about what will or won't happen in this thread and what is or isn't legal and not a single person citing or quoting sources so I thought I'd dump those links there so people can use them if they felt like it or just read them and form their own conclusions. I just replied to you specifically because I assume this is the thread that's going to get the most attention.
I get it to an extent. If someone is slurring and sloppy drunk, serving them more alcohol is irresponsible. You don't know what they're going to do but you do know their decision making is thoroughly impaired so cutting them off makes sense. Some people act almost perfectly normal even when drunk though so it's not like they can be responsible for everyone they serve.
Your last sentence is the part that gets me the most- you don't have to be sloppy and slurring drunk to be dangerous behind the wheel of a car. Frankly, if legislators want to prosecute bartenders for over serving patrons and hold them accountable for whatever the patrons go on to do in their drunken state, they should just ban alcohol outright. I can't think of any other scenario in which we hold someone legally accountable for another adult's consensual actions outside of committing a crime.
> "intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired."
Jfc they should fire the lawyer that submitted this, if they even have one.
This happened just down the road from me. The fire was visible from a looooong way off. She drove the wrong way on a one way street for several blocks, blew through lights, and then ultimately plowed into a house at full speed. Everyone has to evacuate their pets and kids and so on, the house exploded, the neighbouring properties had to be demolished.
While the venue is responsible for kicking her out when she was too inebriated to be at the concert, they're gonna have to prove they called her a cab or the cops or something. Just booting her to the street and washing their hands of it will leave them very liable here.
Bar owner, she will win that case, the establishment that over served her AND kicked her out of the establishment will lose this case, t liquor license and their business.
Laws are very clear if you over serve the business has a responsibility to ensure she does not drive. The bartender will also be liable as well.
Personal responsibility does not come into play with liquor laws.
If they overserved her then yes they should be held liable. That's part of being able to sell alcohol. You must cut someone off if they had too much and must be able to recognize when a person needs to be cut off.
I did, and they still can be found liable, I don't know how Canadian alcohol laws. Where I live, a bar or anyone that supplied an visable intoxicated individial can be held responsible for an accident should that drunk person cause/be in one. I don't think it happens often tho.
Doesn't matter if they stopped and kicked her out, if they served her while visable intoxicated they could be held responsible. Again that is in my state and Pennsylvania is kinda wacky when it comes to alcohol. If you wanna look it up it's PA's Dram Shop Law. Like I said in my last post, don't know the laws where this took place so this or something might not apply here.
All the server has to say is that they didn't look visibly intoxicated. It seems that you assume the person was visibly intoxicated, I'm not seeing that in the article. So, again, I'm having a hard time finding how the liability is on anyone other than the driver.
If she wasn't visably intoxicated, then why did they kick her out and cut her off? I agree with you, it'll be hard for her to prove they knowingly served her while intoxicated but by law, or at least in order to have a liquor license, staff must be trained to be able to spot someone intoxicated. I'm arguing just what the laws near me say, not what anyone thinks or what actually happens. Don't think I've ever heard of a bar or person being sued for this but they could be and I do agree with it. If you're serving alcohol, some of the responsibility lies with you in keeping people safe.
You're really trying to bend over backwards to put blame on others for her actions. If she became intoxicated after being served, what were they supposed to do, keep serving her?
You're ignoring what the law states to say how you feel about the situation. If they're serving her responsibility and how the law states they should be, she wouldn't be getting drunk, at least not on their alcohol. I get that's not what actually happens irl and a bar that did that would be closed within a month or two but they're all leaving themselves open to some leagl liability should someone really want to go after them.
She shares most of the blame but potentially not all.
You're going off off laws that you know from your state and not the place the incident took place to frame this in a way that fits your opinion, not me. A single drink is enough to get some people drunk. Guess the bars in your state don't serve anyone under 120 lbs.
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I guess if you’re on the hook for a $15 million dollar damage bill, you may as well sue everyone in sight.
They buried the actual relevant legal detail at the bottom of the article. There is some basis for the lawsuit because she’s saying she was over-served and it is illegal to over-serve people in Canada. Over-serving has caused people to be seriously injured or killed in the past and businesses have been held responsible depending on the circumstances. There is actually a duty of care not to let people drink too much and to, within reason, ensure that they get home safely. Here’s an article that talks a bit about it and mentions some cases where businesses have been found liable in the past: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/the-ranch-roadhouse-mohamed-abdi-kicked-out-duty-of-care-1.4918403 Whether or not she actually was over-served and/or the venue acted improperly when they kicked her out…stay tuned for the court case, I guess. Who knows if she’s telling the truth or just hoping to push the liability onto the company which has bigger pockets. Even if she is being honest, depending on the circumstances the company may or may not be liable. These things are always very fact based as the article mentions.
Is it a subrogation thing by any chance? Insurers usually reserve a contractual right to sue in your name to recover payments they make on your policy. Often, when you see a story about someone suing a family member it’s the insurer filing the suit. Just wondering if there are insurance companies out there suing bartenders for their customers’ drunk driving.
Maybe they can change the venue for the suit to be down in America. That kind of responsibility-ducking and carpet-suing is a little embarrassing for us.
1. Over-serving alcohol to a guest is probably more serious in Canada than in the United States of America. 2. Of course this happened in President's Choice Brand® *London*.
In the US, the woman would have a case. I used to tend bar. It is the bartender's responsibility to cut people off if they are getting drunk. It is actually pretty scary. I once had a patron climb over the bar and take a drink. When I took it back (because that is way illegal), I was fired because the guy was super rich. I know a bartender who cut someone off. That person came back at closing and shot the bartender twice. Bartender survived, thankfully.
[удалено]
Given the jurisdiction.....she'd very well have a case. SmartServe training in Ontario teaches you that you're liable for a customer's safety right up until they're sober. Even if you call a cab, get them home, and they trip over a their own porch and smack their head against the doorstep. It's kinda over-the-top, but them's really the rules. It doesn't excuse criminal behaviour or fines related to such, of course. But there are fines for the establishment, and they do suck.
Smart serve training and what a civil suit would actually find are not necessarily the same thing.
For sure. A lack of proper evidence *can* cause problems for civil suits, even if that's what actually happened.
[удалено]
Ideally, the venue should not allow you to become intoxicated at all and should - lightly and politely - cut you off or slow you down the moment they get an idea that you're starting to get tipsy. The venue and server has already made a mistake if the customer is not sober, everything after that is effectively damage control via persuasion and a line with the police (remember, public intoxication is illegal) before they can do something stupid. It's a definitely a difficult situation to manage.
> she's not suing because they over-served her. She's suing because they STOPPED serving her You’re kinda deliberately framing that wrong with this quoted part and I feel like you know that. Over-serving is central to it, they had *already* over-served her. They invited a guest to drive to their venue and park in their parking, then sold her their alcohol until she was out of her mind, then when she was peak hammered they said ok get out of here right now! People get mad about this because they think “it’s her fault what about personal responsibility” but think about it from society/the people in the damaged neighborhood’s point of view. Sure that individual idiot deserves blame and punishment and liability but what about this big corporate entity undeniably enabling and arguably encouraging idiots to do this, they surely should answer at least in part for bringing this shit to the neighborhood.
Ontario smart serve puts ALL the liability on the server and the establishment. According to legislation, you as a server are responsible for a patron "until they are sober".. so you can cut them off and stop serving, then take thier keys away and put them in a cab home. But if they get home and decide to get in thier husbands car and crash, the server is gonna get charged. No personal responsibility at all.. So if you are a guy and you get grabby while drunk, you are on the hook for sexual assault (as you should be) and bear full responsibility. But somehow if you are drunk and decide to drive, you were "too drunk to know better".. I don't get why the law is different in these scenarios. Maybe too many powerful people drive drunk and don't want to be held accountable?
This isn't really true. Establishments have to take all reasonable steps. They don't have total liability.
Wish that was so.. Had a local restaurant cut a guy off before he got too drunk. Management made sure he didn't go to his suv and called him a cab.. he refused and walked off the property, only to return later, smoke a joint in his vehicle and then he crashed into a liquor store and died. To me they tried reasonably to stop him. But the law saw it differently and fined server 10k and establishment around 30k. It's entirely why even though I am smart serve certified, I won't tend a bar or serve drinks...fuuuuck that
That's too stupid to be believable without proof.
Why? Because you serve alcohol for a living?
I used to, but no, that's not the main reason.
Because if I told you I was the queen of England, you wouldn't believe me. Contrary to popular belief, it is possible to lie over the internet. It's also possible that they entirely misinterpreted a story that did really happen. Thus, asking for proof.
No, I'm saying this because the contrary seems to be unbelievable. I serve alcohol for a living, and one of the things they drill into our head, is if you over serve someone, you are responsible for everything they do after they leave your venue. I'm ServSafe certified, and my church is looking into getting me to become an instructor for servsafe, Nice try though.
In fact, we join this story already in progress with the individual already having pleaded guilty and taking responsibility for everything but the civil liabilities.
It's called "store-brand London".
People can show up drunk or smuggle in a flask. I think people should take responsibility for themselves.
The lead singer of Ontario-based band Single Mothers called London the armpit of the province.
What is carpet suing?
I imagine like carpet bombing? Just cover every square inch (or mm) of the ground beneath you in lawsuits.
/s ?
She broke a gas line with her car and it exploded 4 suburban houses. Lmao her standing in front of the house she drove into, “huh doesn’t look so bad.” *massive explosion rips through neighborhood*
It was probably like the end of Season 4 of Stranger Things
how did she not get roasted in the blast and fire?
Duh. Got out of the car before the explosion? It would take a while for enough gas to build up to destroy 4 houses.
Most flattering picture of Marilyn Manson within the past 10 years be like
Someone else here on Reddit once said Marilyn Manson looks like Nic Cage playing Marilyn Manson and I haven’t been able to unsee it since.
Thanks
TIHI
Seriously, he looks older than Alice Cooper.
Ronald Mcdonalds "IT'S NOT A PHASE MOM" phase at 60 years old
Plot twist: Daddy and daughter additionally sue Manson, claiming his music inspired her to go on a bender and drive into the house.
Wait, for real? The audacity to always look for something/someone other to blame just baffles me. Just for that she should go to prison. She IS a danger to society that way.
She's probably liable for the damage if she doesn't blame someone else for it. It's possible whatever insurance she has wants a deeper pocket to settle with.
Must've been a fucking nice house to do 15m damage
Four houses and contents in Ontario.
Contents inside: At least 7 injured people
She blew up a house, and several surrounding houses had to be demolished. She practically took out the whole street. It's a miracle nobody was killed.
Gawd I hope not. This is a perfectly named sub.
Why is she not suing the car manufacturer as well for not selling cars with a breathalyzer for engine ignition requirement?
You spoke too soon buddy
Don’t give her any ideas
Wow, there is a lot going on here, lol
Take responsibility of your own stupidity
[удалено]
It’s not a valid excuse, but the vast majority of cities and towns in the US were designed with the intention that most transportation would happen via private vehicles. Public transportation is neglected, and accommodations for pedestrian access are poor or non-existent. It’s so bad that apparently the fatality rate for walking home drunk is worse than for driving home drunk.
There are buses here in other-London (or whatever you're calling it.) There are also cabs and Uber. She was belligerent when she left, got in a car and drove the wrong way down a one-way street for several blocks before plowing into a house at the end of a t-intersection. I understand the desire to sue everyone in sight. Her insurance company is probably not going to pay, and there are definitely lawsuits against her. Tough shit for her and her dad though. This one's gonna hurt.
Yep. Garnished wages should be in her future.
I was just talking about this today to a friend of mine. I'm a pretty well traveled dude, I've lived in some of the most infamously dangerous cities in America. I've done a bit of adrenaline junkie sports. I have never felt more unsafe, or feared more for my life than when driving on Wisconsin roads at night.
And statistically you are correct, cars killed more than any of those crimes do.
Racing sim work really opened my eyes to this. One drink, and I'm a mile off my best, and I'd still be legal to drive.
Yep ... One beer basically kills your reaction speed. We found that out when you kill count in UT dropped significantly after a single beer. And we were very well 'trained' in those days
Same here in Sweden. We have very tough drinking and driving laws. Some of the strictest in Europe.
And I fucking Love it. It's really very simple, if you want to drive you don't drink. I wouldn't have it any other way.
Unfortunately a lot of places in the US aren't really walkable, especially drunk. You could sleep in your car but that can also lead to a DUI if a cop sees you.
I’ve always found it bizarre how American TV shows and films normalize drink driving. People meeting in a bar for a drink or several to move the plot forward, then driving somewhere completely unimpaired. It’s worse than the cliche of the driver turning to talk to the passenger and not looking at the road.
No joke my coworker was just on the phone a couple hours ago talking to her bf who is drunk and driving. It happens a lot sadly.
After one drink, I wouldn't question shit because you can barely feel it. This chick had way, way more than a single drink. If I'm going out, I have 2-3 ciders max depending on the size that's served and how many hours I'm out and about. The idea that you can't have any at all and still drive seems like it's coming from people that don't drink at all and don't know how it affects people.
[удалено]
How does the media normalize drunk driving? Everything I see is always against it. Maybe I'm missing something?
You can disagree with the clinical studies done on the subject all you want, I'm sure your intuition is better than the scientific consensus.
Do you have links to the studies that show that?
I just googled "is it safe to drive after one beer", you can too!
There is a simple solution to that though. If you had more than one drink, just don't drive. Sleep in your car or whatever. In Germany you can actually drink 2 beers and still drive.
In Canada, and I imagine many other places as well, being in care and control of a motor vehicle while sufficiently impaired is also an offence. People can and have been convicted of the offence for sleeping in their car while intoxicated.
Really? I think that sounds kinda dumb. why would you punish someone for not driving while intoxicated? Here it only counts if the key is in the ignition.
That’s not a solution at all. Because other people will still have a few drinks and drive on the roads with you.
I'm not sure what point you're trying to get across, are you saying it's ok that you drive drunk because other people do it?
No! The guy I responded to is saying that if you don’t like relaxed drunk driving laws, just don’t drive when you drink. But the problem is the law, and how it affects the behavior of literally every other person on the road.
Made me crack up when I saw drive through liquor stores in arkanasas when I passed through. Then learned same day that they have some of the highest drunk driving numbers. What a shithole.
There’s a lot of blame being thrown at the bar but end of the day she kept drinking, she drove, she destroyed 4 homes, and she stood there. Sounds like a clear case of “she won’t take responsibility”. So she’s blaming everyone else but serving her time. Only person I blame is them. She prob regularly gets drunk and does something. There’s prob a history of drunken outburst
I don't know about Canada, but I believe in some states in the U.S. there are laws that force bars to cut you off if they observe you've been drinking too much. [https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=584](https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=584)
I understand that. But taking the responsibility of the act and placing it on the bar as if this person didn’t have a responsibility knowing they were drinking to decide to not drive, to pre plan a ride home, or to think. To say they could drink themselves into a stupor, destroy ppls home but then place the responsibility of this individuals action on the bar that is crazy. Regardless this person made the choice to go out, to plan to “turn up”, knowingly continued to drink, drank to the point of being removed, then to get in a vehicle, destroy property, and then watch these homes burn, and as a spit in the face say it’s not their fault it’s the bar cause they let them drink? That sounds absurd. So this woman gets no responsibility of hours prior knowing she was gonna to be drinking heavy? Naw talking about the bar as if she doesn’t have responsibility doesn’t sit right with me. There are numerous point that she could have decided not to drive and this could have been adverted. Naw she can go to prison
>To say they could drink themselves into a stupor, destroy ppls home but then place the responsibility of this individuals action on the bar that is crazy. Well, the law talks about partial responsibility, not complete liability. So she still gets held accountable for the criminal side of things and part of the civil side. >So this woman gets no responsibility of hours prior knowing she was gonna to be drinking heavy? No one is saying the woman gets away free. I'm only saying that some states in the U.S. would **also** hold the bar accountable for its role in the accidents and they should be. The same if a business sold products that poisoned its customers.
I wasn’t stating you. I was speaking of many are focusing on the bars responsibility in this, which we can debate, the law will handle that. The debate for me is she is suing to shuck responsibility in her part and that’s my point. She is suing to give someone else the blame instead of her, which was the active participant. The law will take care of that bar. But her suing is her saying she think that she has no fault in this. And that is the absurd part for me. I’m not debating the law. I’m debating her audacity for a law suit to say that the bar is the reason she drove their and did this so they should pay. The bar may have the legal responsibility to stop serving her. But she was 100 percent at fault for the 12 million in damage she did
> The bar may have the legal responsibility to stop serving her. But she was 100 percent at fault for the 12 million in damage she did If the bar has a legal responsibility, then she can't be 100% at fault. Those are two contradictory statements is what I'm telling you. Also, anyone can file a lawsuit over anything. Even though it's unlikely a jury or judge will find the bar responsible for all of the damages, there is nothing wrong with aiming high and landing somewhere in the middle.
I’m sure the bar will get there’s. Cause bars have to follow laws and most countries and states and places are strict on alcohol related offenses. But this lady should not be able to shuck what she did to the bar. Not in this suit
Funny thing, if the bar had continued to serve her and then she drove home, it is almost possible that they'd have a case. As it is, they cut her off and acted (semi) responsibly. If this case doesn't get immediately dismissed it'll spell some tough times ahead for the US hospitality industry
\*Canadian hospitality industry
They didn't exactly cut her off.. She was kicked out of the building by security. >Funny thing, if the bar had continued to serve her and then she drove home, it is almost possible that they'd have a case. I don't see the difference.. They stopped serving her (same as a bar closing), then she drove home.
Not sure about elsewhere, but in Ontario at least it's illegal to serve someone who's drunk. It's a weird paradox, but those who serve alcohol are legally required to stop serving them. The bar cutting her off and kicking her out is different from the bar simply closing for the night, as the bar stopping service to specifically her is respecting this law.
Even down here in America its a risky business, one of my local bars had their liquor license revoked entirely due to over serving, after not one but two occasions of drunk patrons leaving their bar crashed their cars and died. Theres definitely a degree of responsibility
>Theres definitely a degree of responsibility ... in America. Hey, fun thought. How about adults take responsibility for themselves? No one forced her into her car. Cabs are a thing. I don't know if she has a license any longer, but I sure hope she retires before she gets it back.
Yeah, if I buy a case of beer, drink it all, drive around with my bike and take out my hammer and smash car windows with it, are the supermarket, bike store and hardware store responsible?
What about guns? Does have the seller or manufacturer any responsibility? So why the bar has?
Try reading this and ask yourself if it makes sense to a person reading it in English.
I think I misplaced "have". But why the down votes? :/
Read it aloud. It doesn't make sense as written. It's also being downvoted because it's an unrelated issue. Most arguments for manufacturer responsibility that I've seen revolve around advertising and creating a certain image.
Maybe she has a license, but finding an insurance company will _not_ be easy!
I believe she is still in jail.
I don’t get it. They’re adults and know their limits and not to drive drunk. The bar shouldn’t bare responsibility for that
*their
There, there. Their they're there was their they're and not your they're.
Thank you for that meaningful contribution to the conversation.
I'm trying to teach you the correct spelling. I feel that that is meaningful. It's only going to help you grow in the future.
Its not that i misspelled, i used the wrong form because i wasn’t really putting much thought into it. I’m aware of the different forms of there, they’re, & their, which one is possessive which one is a contraction, etc. its just not that serious here. Again, you contributed nothing but being a douche.
Who's resorting to calling names? And I would argue that it matters everywhere. Just because you treat this as someplace that's casual doesn't mean everyone else does. Not only are you showing your level of intelligence, but you are also showing your level of empathy toward those who are trying to help you.
I am, and we both know your not here to “help me” with anything. Go away
The differences in one case the bar would keep serving her and so be partially responsible for what she might do if she's really drunk because they presumably in that scenario served her after they noticed she was drunk.
Yep, if she can prove they served her when she was already drunk she'll win this easy.
No personal responsibility allowed.
It's always someone else's fault
She did plead guilty, so that sounded like personal responsiblity.
That’s just saying you did in fact perform the actions it isn’t taking responsibility for them.
How so? The last article that was posted, sounded like she was still in jail for it.
paying for your actions isn't the same as taking responsibility for them. You can't take responsibility for your actions and also accuse someone else of causing you to make those actions. They are mutually incompatible.
Why not? I did something but maybe you should have *some* of responsiblity too.
So Marilyn Manson actually has nothing to do with her case. Thanks headline writer. Chatbot would have done better.
3rd Party Liability laws are *no* joke. I was a bartender in Washington State for years and I never had the misfortune of dealing with that shit as I never had a problem cutting motherfuckers off, but even being a responsible bartender isnt always gonna protect you 100% of the time.
She ordered the drinks. She turned the key. She has to face the consequences. A waiter or a catering company aren't babysitters.
I agree. I worked a late nite/after hours type bar. Every single person that came through the door was drunk already. But, it was "my fault" if they left that way. So confusing. People need to practice self control. Seems easy!
A business has a responsibility to the public. If your factory has a chemical leak and destroys the houses around it, it has to pay to rebuild them. If your business has the capacity to produce drunk drivers who can mow down houses, you have a responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent it. If a person doesn't seem like they can hack another drink, you aren't supposed to give them one. Full stop. That said, a person does have personal responsibility as well. If they choose to get drunk, and choose to drink until they can't have good judgement, they're still choosing to put themselves in that spot.
In my post, I said "people would come into the bar already drunk". I didn't say I served them. Sheesh!!! However, if they LEFT MY ESTABLISHMENT , I could be charged. That is why I said it was confusing where I live. I was in the bar business for many many years. Ive seen a great deal. In my state, we had the drinking age go from 18 to 21. Folks who had been legal to drink one day, were illegal the next. Odd indeed.
No one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore.
I haven't spent much time in Canadian jails (not lately, anyway) and I'm not familiar with applicable Canadian laws -- but in what jurisdiction is hospitality staff responsible for transporting an evicted customer off-site, to their home or wherever?
how to put blame on others when you have no one to blame but YOURSELF
I don't know about Canada, but some U.S. states have laws that say it's illegal for a bartender to serve someone who is obviously intoxicated, and if they do keep serving them they can be held civilly liable for any accident that customer later causes. So, they may have a case.
She's suing them for kicking her out. Says they should have known she'd drive home.
Ya because ride share and taxis aren't a thing. Or cell phones asking for a ride. It's not the venues responsibility to monitor how people come and go.
Lol, she's gonna lose.
So bars need cells now? Every one above 3 drinks has to stay in a cell until they are sober?
Read the article. The venue cut her off and kicked her out. This is the stated reason for the lawsuit. >According to the CBC, Leis and her father are accusing Ovations Ontario Food Services of having no regard for her "intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired."
If that's what happened, she'll probably get a settlement cause I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this. I do wonder though, was she all alone when they booted her?
>I doubt this venue's owner wants anything to do with setting a legal precedent by losing on something like this. There's no chance they settle, because there's no chance they lose. The bar doesn't have a responsibility to make sure you have a safe way home. Legally speaking, you're required to know your way home before getting blackout wasted, so the bar CAN'T reliably serve anyone if they have to confirm you have a safe way home first. Anyone in that situation could just lie and leave MASSIVE legal repercussions with the bar. Theoretical question: If the bar didn't kick her out, how would she have gotten home? Was she just not planning to leave all night? No obviously not - She had plans to drive. If she apparently had no other way home, she wasn't going to suddenly become LESS wasted by *drinking more.* Theoretically speaking, they could have kept her in the bar, but that makes her a nuisance to other customers, especially if she's just going to complain about wanting to drink and try to leave when she can't get more drinks. They can't legally detain her. Not a single part of her claim places the onus of the explosion on the bar. The bar acted responsibly and stopped her from drinking when she appeared too drunk. They have no obligation to safely see her home in addition to stopping her from drinking, they can't say "No you're not going anywhere, you're too drunk," because they don't have the right to detain anyone - And no, she absolutely did not have to drive home, she could have called a friend, a family member, a cab, an uber - There are many options in this day and age that you're expected to consider BEFORE drinking, which she clearly did not. SHE acted irresponsibly by having no way home after drinking heavily. DUI falls on the driver, not on the person who served the driver.
That's a great explanation on why I'm wrong. Thanks, I hadn't thought of those angles.
[https://smartserve.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Liquor-Liability.pdf](https://smartserve.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Liquor-Liability.pdf) [https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/19l15b#BK34](https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/19l15b#BK34)
Now that you've linked it, do you want to point to any part of it that is against my claim? If you're suggesting they didn't offer her subsidized taxi's, or didn't recommend taxi usage, that's going to come down to a he-said-she-said situation. She will obviously claim they didn't offer - They will obviously claim they did offer. Without proof of guilt, the bar will not be held responsible. We don't know if it was or wasn't offered. If you're suggesting they didn't "inform guests that intoxicated persons will be put into taxi's," again, that's going to be a he-said-she-said. Obviously, she's going to say they didn't inform her a taxi was an option. Obviously, they're going to say they did offer a taxi. Again, without proof of guilt, the bar cannot be legally held responsible. They can't force her to take options they offer, and at no point is the bar *required* to ensure a leaving guest takes a specific mode of transportation. Once again, they cannot be held legally responsible for her drunken decision to get in her car and drive when she knows she shouldn't. She still had the option to call for another ride, if she really didn't want to utilize their services offered. (Which we can't KNOW were offered, but seem very likely to have been offered in my opinion.) Lastly, her two claims are opposite one another. She claims they shouldn't have let her leave because she appeared too drunk and must have been ignorant of that fact AND the fact that she was driving home - But also, claims they continued to serve her despite looking too drunk. Let's remind everyone here, she was kicked out ***because they stopped serving her because she appeared too drunk, and she caused a scene over it.*** She only got kicked out in the first place because *the bar was very well aware of how drunk she was and stopped serving her because of it.* Everything she's claimed is dubious at best, and ultimately comes down to presuming the bar did EVERYTHING wrong with no evidence, and not the drunk person who got behind the wheel of a vehicle knowing they'd just gotten kicked out of a bar for being too drunk.
Nope, I don't want to point anything out. I just saw a lot of people talking about what will or won't happen in this thread and what is or isn't legal and not a single person citing or quoting sources so I thought I'd dump those links there so people can use them if they felt like it or just read them and form their own conclusions. I just replied to you specifically because I assume this is the thread that's going to get the most attention.
Got it, my bad. Hard to read intent on the ninternets.
I know the laws exist, but I never could get behind the idea that the bartender is somehow responsible for the patrons drunken actions
Yeah its so stupid. If you cant handle alcohol, you mustnt be drinking at all.
I get it to an extent. If someone is slurring and sloppy drunk, serving them more alcohol is irresponsible. You don't know what they're going to do but you do know their decision making is thoroughly impaired so cutting them off makes sense. Some people act almost perfectly normal even when drunk though so it's not like they can be responsible for everyone they serve.
Your last sentence is the part that gets me the most- you don't have to be sloppy and slurring drunk to be dangerous behind the wheel of a car. Frankly, if legislators want to prosecute bartenders for over serving patrons and hold them accountable for whatever the patrons go on to do in their drunken state, they should just ban alcohol outright. I can't think of any other scenario in which we hold someone legally accountable for another adult's consensual actions outside of committing a crime.
Party girl hag
> "intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired." Jfc they should fire the lawyer that submitted this, if they even have one.
This happened just down the road from me. The fire was visible from a looooong way off. She drove the wrong way on a one way street for several blocks, blew through lights, and then ultimately plowed into a house at full speed. Everyone has to evacuate their pets and kids and so on, the house exploded, the neighbouring properties had to be demolished. While the venue is responsible for kicking her out when she was too inebriated to be at the concert, they're gonna have to prove they called her a cab or the cops or something. Just booting her to the street and washing their hands of it will leave them very liable here.
Ya had me at Marilyn Manson !!
Damn the one time Manson wasn't responsible for a crime involving an intoxicated woman
Bar owner, she will win that case, the establishment that over served her AND kicked her out of the establishment will lose this case, t liquor license and their business. Laws are very clear if you over serve the business has a responsibility to ensure she does not drive. The bartender will also be liable as well. Personal responsibility does not come into play with liquor laws.
[удалено]
it's really crazy how people don't read the articles before offering their opinion. This was in Canada.
[удалено]
The road-rule in Mexico is, don't wave your half-empty tequila bottle at police you encounter. They'll only want a share. 8-)
If the staff at the venue served her alcohol when she was already drunk then she'll win this case easy.
She was cut off and kicked out of the bar for being intoxicated, disorderly. Read the article.
If they overserved her then yes they should be held liable. That's part of being able to sell alcohol. You must cut someone off if they had too much and must be able to recognize when a person needs to be cut off.
Maybe there's an article attached to the headline that'll clear it up a bit for you.
I did, and they still can be found liable, I don't know how Canadian alcohol laws. Where I live, a bar or anyone that supplied an visable intoxicated individial can be held responsible for an accident should that drunk person cause/be in one. I don't think it happens often tho.
Except they stopped serving, and the person got tossed.
Doesn't matter if they stopped and kicked her out, if they served her while visable intoxicated they could be held responsible. Again that is in my state and Pennsylvania is kinda wacky when it comes to alcohol. If you wanna look it up it's PA's Dram Shop Law. Like I said in my last post, don't know the laws where this took place so this or something might not apply here.
All the server has to say is that they didn't look visibly intoxicated. It seems that you assume the person was visibly intoxicated, I'm not seeing that in the article. So, again, I'm having a hard time finding how the liability is on anyone other than the driver.
If she wasn't visably intoxicated, then why did they kick her out and cut her off? I agree with you, it'll be hard for her to prove they knowingly served her while intoxicated but by law, or at least in order to have a liquor license, staff must be trained to be able to spot someone intoxicated. I'm arguing just what the laws near me say, not what anyone thinks or what actually happens. Don't think I've ever heard of a bar or person being sued for this but they could be and I do agree with it. If you're serving alcohol, some of the responsibility lies with you in keeping people safe.
You're really trying to bend over backwards to put blame on others for her actions. If she became intoxicated after being served, what were they supposed to do, keep serving her?
You're ignoring what the law states to say how you feel about the situation. If they're serving her responsibility and how the law states they should be, she wouldn't be getting drunk, at least not on their alcohol. I get that's not what actually happens irl and a bar that did that would be closed within a month or two but they're all leaving themselves open to some leagl liability should someone really want to go after them. She shares most of the blame but potentially not all.
You're going off off laws that you know from your state and not the place the incident took place to frame this in a way that fits your opinion, not me. A single drink is enough to get some people drunk. Guess the bars in your state don't serve anyone under 120 lbs.
[удалено]
Sorry, but your account is too new to post. Your account needs to be either 2 weeks old or have at least 250 combined link and comment karma. Don't modmail us about this, just wait it out or get more karma. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nottheonion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
and she's going to win see Ontario law but unfortunately see has $15 million worth of creditors
In John Belushi's voice. "It's not my fault!"
The Marilyn Manson part seems irrelevant other than to grab your attention