From: kretz@remus.rutgers.edu (Kevin Kretz)
Newsgroups: rec.motorcycles
Subject: Re: My bike got vandalized last night
Summary: Reality check
Date: 25 Aug 92 16:47:56 GMT
Article-I.D.: remus.Aug.25.12.47.55.1992.166
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

In article <6015@vtserf.cc.vt.edu>, ranck@joesbar.cc.vt.edu (Wm. L. Ranck) writes:
> kretz@remus.rutgers.edu (Kevin Kretz) writes:
> : 
> : leaving.  He gets into it with someone else outside, and as an
> : expression of rage, pushes my motorcycle over.  He did not know it was
> : 
> : 	Anyone know the legal liability of the bar?  How do I pursue
> : reimbursement if the bar is liable?  It's New Jersey.
> :  
>    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.

>  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.   

>  Now maybe they could have stopped 
> serving the guy, but he may have been drunk when he got there.

He was not.  However, if he was, the bar is still liable for making
sure he doesn't do anything stupid.  I think this part of the law is
questionable, but, not applied here. 

>    Of course in this country where everybody wants someone else to pay for
> their mistakes and/or bad luck some court may give you a judgement, but 
> that doesn't make it right.

It's not _my_ mistake, and a lack of security is certainly not bad luck.


>  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.

	Please understand: I think everyone sues everyone too much and
that accident lawyers should be strung up.  However, I'm following the
letter of a law which, I think, has some stupid provisions.  For
example, say this guy does show up.  Let's say he's found guilty of
criminal mischief and is ordered to pay for my damages.  
	If he proves he was drinking in the bar before it happened,
not only will the bar have to pay him for the damages he incurred to
me, they can be (theoretically) ordered to pay him more because he got
in trouble.  Then they would also be fined by the state ABC.

	But it's not only bars.  If someone bashed into your car at
ShopRite (or wherever you buy food) and left, doing considerable
damage, would you say "Oh, well, it's bad luck, it's not the
supermarket's fault so I won't say anything?"  I doubt it.  If this guy
disappears, it's the same thing.

	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).
 
		Even if I were insured against vandalism, and I made a
claim, the insurance company would either advise me to get the money
from the bar, or it would pay me and get the money from the bar
itself.  Same outcome.

					Kevin