So it begins: Gerald Ung & 5 Bars Being Sued in Civil Court

[Connal]

Poor victims. Being held down while people poured copious amounts of booze down their throats. People should know that they would be violent, and could be shot at in self defense. And how dare someone fight back. Lets face it, he was outnumbered. There was no need for a gun.

[Mosinshooter762]

Why do you say this (emphasis mine):



After I clearly said this in a previous post:



You say that you understand what I'm trying to point out, but then you say you fail to see where it comes into play. Let me reiterate what I'm trying to say yet again... what I see here is a frivolous lawsuit in an attempt to be a money grab. This is obviously a pattern of behavior as this happens a lot. Bars get sued all the time for basically serving alcohol, which is what they are in business to do. My point for the THIRD time is that this has created a heightened level of paranoia with them in an attempt to reduce liability as much as they possibly can. They take steps to try to cover themselves as much as possible. Some of these steps are the same ones that were mentioned previously. It's not an attempt to avoid being sued... it's an attempt to avoid losing a lawsuit.

Either you're totally missing my point, or you're being difficult for the sake of being difficult. Why do vendors of alcohol scan IDs or create policies and practices? It's not so that they can sell more booze... quite the contrary. The sole reason is to try to mitigate some of the liability or the responsibility that a misguided jury might see in one of these lawsuits... even if this costs them business. People can continue to sue all they want but the chances of winning one of those suits goes down when the bar has all their ducks in a row. In this particular case, it's going to be damn near impossible for them to demonstrate anything specific about serving Ung alcohol so... NO, scanning ID's does not apply. However, they probably have all kinds of documentation demonstrating appropriate training of staff and compliance with policies about serving visibly intoxicated persons... or at least they should if they were smart. While not intrusive on the patrons, these, too, are things that they have to put in place to try to reduce liability from frivolous suits.

MY POINT IS THAT ALL THESE GENERAL ACTIONS TAKEN BY BARS IN GENERAL ARE DUE TO THE FACT THAT PEOPLE IN GENERAL HAVE BEEN SUING THEM IN GENERAL FOR A GENERALLY LONG TIME AND FOR GENERALLY BASELESS REASONS. When bars are so likely to be sued, they want to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. This leads to what some people view as excessive attempts to demonstrate compliance with the law. If idiots and ambulance chasers were not suing bars all the time, then maybe they wouldn't have to be so damned concerned about covering their asses.

I don't know how I can make it any more clear.

Fair enough, I understood your point to begin with. I pointed out how the bars would of been wasting their money if they wanted to stop a case like this. In addition, I have yet to see where the scanners have made a difference in deterring/stopping civil complaints or insurance payouts or change case outcomes. I will concede I'm not a practicing (plaintiff/defense/insurance) lawyer and don't handle these cases everyday, but I have some of degree knowledge of the major case law on liquor liability, and have seen on what plaintiffs win on and what defendants win on.

Those under 21 can be quite sophisticated at getting into bars, and it seems the ID scanners aren't too much of a hassle to them. Many have real ID's that they have gotten from someone over 21 or have fakes that are really sophisticated and have the information on the black strip or bar code and thus appear real to the scanner. Many places that utilize the scanners don't even bother checking the information or picture on the card. I have overheard many (I don't claim all) under 21 saying that they have a real ID (or a sophisticated 'fake') that they got from somewhere.

Maybe my point is too, at the end of the day, no matter what you do, as Gunlawyer001 always points out, it takes a relatively small sum to file the civil compliant at the court house. Whether they win a trial or receive a settlement is a completely different story. Many don't want to take responsibility for what they do. Take Eddie, for example.

[mrjam2jab]

This brings the term "Frivolous lawsuit" to a whole new level. I hope the suit fails. I would think that this is covered under HB40 since the civil complaint was filed after the enactment of the law, but I am not the Philadelphia judge....

....who, if i recall correctly, probably has some connection to DiDonato's father...

[father-of-five]

....who, if i recall correctly, probably has some connection to DiDonato's father...

I'm being a little pessimistic again, but I have a bad feeling that justice won't be as blind as she's supposed to be here.

[Grapeshot]

Another ride on the slippery slope of justice begins. Who says that sn!t can't flow uphill and it stinks regardless.

[uniballin]

[mythaeus]

This happened last night, a few blocks from Ung's incident, and one of the defendants in this case is also mentioned...

Man, 23, dies after savage attack in Old City

In an attack as brutal as it was senseless, a 23-year-old man was dead Saturday night after being beaten by three men near Independence Hall early in the morning, police said.

The killing stemmed from a misunderstanding over a hailed cab, investigators said.

About 2:30 a.m., in the bustle of an Old City weekend night, the victim, whose name police did not immediately release Saturday, was walking with two female friends on Chestnut Street near Fourth Street - the trio having just left Lucy's Hat Shop Restaurant & Lounge a few blocks away.

More...

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/lo...mpid=124488459

Al

[Palerider]

This happened last night, a few blocks from Ung's incident, and one of the defendants in this case is also mentioned...

I saw this on ABC news this morning. They did not describe the viciousness noted in the article where they went back and smashed the victim's head into the steps.

Thanks goodness no guns were involved and it was only a fist fight..

[-JD-]

I saw this on ABC news this morning. They did not describe the viciousness noted in the article where they went back and smashed the victim's head into the steps.

Thanks goodness no guns were involved and it was only a fist fight..

Yep, bare hands present no danger of death or serious physical harm ... after all it was 3 on 3, right.

[tacticalreload]

Yep, bare hands present no danger of death or serious physical harm ... after all it was 3 on 3, right.

Seriously. Sadly, even the smaller and more frail of the females involved could have possibly saved this guy's life if only they had a firearm.