Talk:Dram shop

message: This article is a hack job by someone with an agenda.  
Whitfield Larrabee 22:49, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you be a little more specific? What's wrong/misleading about it? - DavidWBrooks 00:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

message: The selective use of false and misleading facts from cases with no citation.  In fact, the inclusion of claims about cases with no reference is in itself a violation of point of view.  Without a specific identification of the case referred to, no one except the editor making the reference to the case by way of anecdote can challenge that assertion.  In the Cimino case, which was identifiable via a text search on an online proprietary legal database from the quote offered the editor, the editor ommitted relevant facts and presented an incorrect and misleading statement of the facts.  The article makes use of false and misleading anecdotes to put forth a point of view.  The obvious inclusion of editorial comments.  The suggestion that bars are automatically liable for serving patrons who get in fights with each other and then injure each other.  The expression of the editor's opinions.  The false comments about Illinois law that betray either a gross ignorance about the subject matter or wilful intent to deceive the readers.  The article as it stood when I described it as a hack job repeatedly makes statements such as, when this and that take place, one can sue the bar.  Its is anyone's constitutional right to sue for whatever they want.  Just because one sues doesn't mean the case will go forward.  Under R. 56 of the rules of civil procedure followed by the federal government and most states, Courts routinely throw out suits that are filed with an insufficient basis.
The article still could use vast improvement, but I made a few revisions to attempt to rectify some of these problems.  
Whitfield Larrabee 18:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no comment on the subject matter you added, since I don't know enough about the topic, but from a sheer readability standpoint, your extra material about "anybody can sue anyone" sounds argumentative and wanders pretty far afield. Better to remove the whole example - which, I agree, seems pretty spurious - than to add more words, IMHO. You're correct that this isn't a very good article; it could easily be cut in half; I look forward to seeing your improvements. - DavidWBrooks 18:46, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a tautology to note that "courts routinely throw out suits that are filed with an insufficient basis."  The problem is that the basis to be "sufficient" to avoid being thrown out is absurdly low.  It's also not true that one has the constitutional right to sue whoever one wants--dram shop laws are creations of statutes, and statutes can be repealed without constitutional violation, as happened in Kansas.  The article was too stilted in the other direction, and having quote after quote from various Supreme Courts regarding the same purpose of the dram-shop laws doesn't add anything meaningful.  Dram shop laws may be worthwhile on the whole, but they create some real problems, and opposition to them is meaningful.  I've cleaned it up and added the other side.  FRCP11 02:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation of why I described the article as a "hack job." 

message: The original article at this page was taken verbatim from the Advocacy Group, the Center For Individual Rights.  This group is closely allied with the Republican Party and other conservative political groups.  The information on its web site is skewed to represent these view points and violates the Wikipedia NPOV rules.  
Whitfield Larrabee 02:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I did a bit of editing of your rewrite - mostly removing a little redundant material left over the old version and some material about drunk-driving accidents that seemed out of place. As this article continues to evolve, I suspect individual state headers (and headers for other countries) will be needed; it seems a little odd right now that we zip past states which don't have much in the way of dram shop laws and go into detail about a couple that have strong ones. - DavidWBrooks 11:29, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  ORIGINAL ARTICLE WAS TAKEN VERBATIM FROM WEB SITE OF ADVOCACY GROUP 

message: The statement, "Some object that the laws, as applied, effectively make bars strictly liable for the torts of their customers", fails to identify who so objects and lacks appropriate sourcing.  The term "strict liability" is a legal term that assumes no fault liablity.  No state has a strict liability dram shop liability state.  This claim is plainly false.
The claim, "because it is relatively easy for a plaintiff to find a professional expert witness who will attest in hindsight that the bar should have known the customer was visibly intoxicated" is another unsources claim that simply states an editors opinion.
"The laws also cost the innocent along with the guilty, as dram shops' insurance rates rise because of the potential liability."
What the the editor mean by this statement.  Of course, liability insurance costs money.  It does not rise because of potential liability.  The rate is set because of competitive forces and based on insurers risk assessments.  Dram shops are not required to have insurance.  If they like, the can pay any judgments from their own assets.
: I have made a few more edits - such as removing a second-person reference, shifting the study results into a separate category - to make it more encyclopedia-ic. I included a general sentence in the introduction about the concern that the laws downplay personal responsibility, to give casual readers some sense of why there would be any debate about the issue at all. - DavidWBrooks 18:57, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More problems with this article 

message: I would like to add this table to the article.  I think it would be useful to those seeking to understand their own statues and to research comparative statutes.  I'm proposing it here first, however, because I am unsure whether this level of detail is appropriate.  If the community thinks this might be useful, I'll continue to fill in the table.  Rossami (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference of dram shop laws 

message: :Cimino v. The Milford Keg, Inc., 385 Mass. 323 (1981). In Cimino,  evidence showed that the intoxicated patron had been served six or more White Russians by the Milford Keg bar. The patron left the bar, arriving at another bar about fifteen minutes later "totally drunk," holding a White Russian. The next bar that he went to refused to serve him. Shortly thereafter, the intoxicated patron lost control of his car, drove on a sidewalk, and killed a pedestrian.
I am not a lawyer nor have any legal background, but just browsing the Cimino case I noticed that "the only entrance to The Milford Keg is through a municipal parking lot", which to me suggests that generalizing this case without any other citations is unjustified.--152.2.62.27 (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cimino v. The Milford Keg, Inc. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Dram shop. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100412055713/http://kreppein.blogspot.com:80/2008/10/lil-bit-olaw-dram-shop-act.html to http://kreppein.blogspot.com/2008/10/lil-bit-olaw-dram-shop-act.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:37, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Not a lot about Dram Shops, which no doubt have a long and noble history.  Just a lot of boring stuff about America's Weird Laws. 
Claverhouse (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonnie Scotland Etc.