From: kretz@remus.rutgers.edu (Kevin Kretz)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: My bike got vandalized last night
Date: 25 Aug 92 20:09:41 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <6023@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck) writes:
] kretz@remus.rutgers.edu (Kevin Kretz) writes:
] : In article <6015@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck) writes:
] : >    This is the kind of logic that really bugs me.  Why the *hell* should
] : > the bar be liable?
] : 
] : Because they let the guy get drunk, they let him go outside when he
] : was obviously agitated, with other agitated people, and because any
] : place of business is responsible for security in their parking area.
] :
]    Pure bullshit!  You want every place of business to have armed
] Nazis patroling the parking lot?

No.  I don't want every place of business putting angry drunk people
intent on mauling each other near my motorcycle.

]  
] : >  They didn't push your bike over.  They didn't do anything
] : > to encourage the drunk to push it over.
] : 
] : Pouring tequila into an idiot seemed to be encouraging.
] : NJ has very strict bar liability laws.  I know, I've bartended here
] : for 5 years, and I managed a bar for about a year.   
] :
    If you know so much about NJ liability laws why the hell are you 
 asking the net?

I was looking for someone who had dealt with something like this
before.   

]    So, if you are sound asleep some night and a drunk comes by and 
] smashes up somebody's car that just happens to be parked in front of
] you house you should feel obligated to pay for the damages? 

Not unless I own the street.  And I didn't just 'happen' to be parked
there.  And the bartender wasn't 'sound asleep'.  And this
hypothetical drunk didn't come out of _my_ house to wreck this
hypothetical car. 



] 
] : It's not _my_ mistake, and a lack of security is certainly not bad luck.
] :
]    I wasn't trying to say that it was your mistake in this particular case,
] It's just the general sort of attitude that I don't like and you are 
] purpetuating it.

That's "perpetuating".

]  
] : 
] : >  The *drunk* owes you for the repairs, not the
] : > bar.
] : 
] : I think the drunk owes me first, but that the bar was partially to
] : blame. That is why I filed the complaint.  Since the guy had no ID,
] : I think my chances are slim of seeing him in court.  Obviously, if the
] : guy pays me, I'd be happier.  I don't see that happening, and I'm not
] : getting stuck for the couple hundred bucks it's going to cost me.
] :
]    Hey, life's tough.  The bar didn't do anything to you and they
] shouldn't owe you dick.  Again, NJ law might see it different, but
] that doesn't make it right. 
  
Not true.  Part of running a bar is handling the people you serve, and
limiting annoyance to the people that live near the bar, and not
letting drunk people drive, etc.  If this guy is too cheap to have
a guy at the door, then he's made a mistake, and this is what happens.

Plus, he wouldn't let me call the police from his phone, because
insurance companies look at police records and see how many calls are
made from bars.   


] : 	If you offer goods or a service for profit, you are inviting
] : the public to park on your property, and you are liable for their
] : safety and the safety of their property.  This may be abused
] : sometimes, by people saying damage occurred somewhere it didn't to
] : collect money for their own mistakes, but it's a sound principle when
] : honestly applied (like here).
] :
]    Agreed, within limits.  The law does not require anything beyond
] what is called "reasonable and prudent".

Having security at a bar is reasonable and prudent.  Some towns
require bars to hire off-duty police officers as security.

] If there are gaping 3ft
] deep potholes in the lot and your suspension gets damaged then
] the business has a resposibility.
] If the bar had a regular 
] problem with people brawling in the lot and damaging vehicles then
] you have a point.

The bar _has_ recently (last couple weeks) had more fighting due to the
closing of a nearby bar that attracted a far less, um, cerebral crowd.

>  But, you shouldn't be able to hold them responsible
> for an unforseeable chain of events.  I know you're going to say that
> it *was* forseeable, but that is what you will have to hire a lawyer
> and go to court about if you insist on collecting from the bar. 
>    Personally, I'd do my damndest to collect from the drunk

I intend to.
], or my
] insurance (if I had coverage), but I wouldn't even try to collect
] from the bar.

Like I said, if I did collect from my insurance company, they would
just get it from the bar, or its insurance company.  

]     This is just my personal opinion and I really am sorry about your
] bike.

Thanks.
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles