[wolffman]

I am suing an establishment for overserving the driver of a car I was in that was hit by another car... confusing I know... the establishment is now threatening to sue me for defamation saying that I have ruined its reputatioin... can I be sued for suing?

[Fr_Chuck]

You need to explain a lot more to help us understand it.

What sort of "institution" high school, driving school, car rental agency

What did they do wrong in supervisor the driver?

And what were they sued for, and why were they sued.

If the owner of the car and the driver werer sued, and they had insurance would that not have covered any and all damages?

And countersueing is the normal way, esp for someone with a lot of money to defeat your law suit, they can keep you in court spending 1000's of your dollars in suit after refiling and appeals, put continueance after being contuined causing you to miss work and more.

I had one suit over an accident that took 8 years to finally be settled, and it was settled in a settlement, there never did reach a verdict.

So if you explain all of this better it could help us. But if you said anything untrue and your suit is found to be baseless they could have grounds for suing you, since what you stated in your suit if proven untrue can be used against you.

[wolffman]

We were at a bar that over served the driver of the car I was in and I am suing the bar for over serving my driver, I am also suing the other driver and the owner of the other car. The lawsuit hasn't even made it to trial and the bar is threatening to sue me for defamation. The drivers alcohol level was .218 and his car was hit by another car (the other drivers fault). I need to know if I can be sued back. It has already been proven that the bar over served my driver and has a reputation for over serving all its customers. I was not aware of this and I did not know that I could sue the bar for over serving my driver until I went to see my attorney. I was injured and had surgery.

[NeedKarma]

Just a thought - if it turns out that you win your suit then the bar's suit must go away since if can't be defamation if it's true. In reality they can't sue for defamation unless you lose your suit.

http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/Obje...4/199/215/ART/

[Fr_Chuck]

An entire issue since you got in with him and were both at the bar.

And of course was the drinking an issue in the accident, if your driver did something wrong, then you have no suit against the other driver,

If you have a suit against the other driver, they did something wrong but if you are trying to prove also your driver did something wrong, it can effect that suit.

If the drinking was not the reason for the accident, all you have is the blook alcohol level. If you prove that your friend, being drunk was the cause of the accident, well that hurts your case against the other driver.

Not sure your lawyer was working all those angles out personally but heck if you agree to pay me a percentage I guess I would sue any and everyone, I may win something from somebody.

But if the accident was the other drivers fault, I don't see what the one driver being drunk had to do with the accident, and if it wasn't a factor in the accident, then the bar is not responsible. add to this you were a party to the drinking,

If this was Vegas, I would put my money on the Bar owners law suit.
You will have to win this case against the bar, if not, then your losing the case will be the evidence they use in thiers.

Are you using the same lawyer for all of this, if not do they know about the other law suits. Just because we can write up a law suit and file it does not mean we should.

Next what damages, and you can most likely only receive actual damages which would have been easily paid by the other drivers insurance if they were written at fault in the accident report ( note if you are not sure, when the police write up their report, the first driver listed is always the one they believe was at the most fault ( at least the way they used to be taught to do them)

I would advice you to check with a second attorney to be sure your first one is not giving some bad advice. My opinoin anyway.
Just because you can sue, does not always mean you should. You can't colleect twice on the same injuries ( both people are not going to pay your hospital bill)

I will assume they have you convinced you will make that million dollar law suit or something, I will note if you are going after the bar owner for serving the driver, the driver of the car you are in, could also sue you, since if the auto wreck was not his fault, and you are trying to show blame on him, he may also decide to sue you,

[CaptainForest]

The only defence to defamation is to prove it is the truth.

You are suing the bar saying they over served him. If that is true, you will win and therefore, prove it to be true and they can't sue you.

However, if you lose, well, then they can win because you obviously did “lie” and damage their reputation with a frivolous lawsuit.

[wolffman]

Is it possible for several parties to be responsible for more than one reason? Bar for over serving, other driver for running a red light and hitting us? The courts found fault with my driver for drinking and didn't care that the accident was caused from the other driver running a red light. The police report supports both my cases. It states the intoxication of my driver and states that the other driver hit us by running a red light.

[CaptainForest]

Yes, more than one party can be found responsible.

The judge will determine percentages. Bar 30% responsible, Owner 40% responsible, other drive 30% responsible or whatever.

And now for the beauty…you can collect the money from ANY of them. Then they have to sue each other to fix the differences. That is, you can collect the entire amount from the bar and then the bar has to get back its part from the owner and other driver.

[wolffman]

So since I am the "innocent" party, I can sue all of them for the part they played. Since his levels were so high and the accident happened immediately after leaving the bar and it is stated in the police report that that is where we left from, there is liability with the bar? I did not know this.

[CaptainForest]

Yeah. Name them all as co-defendants.

I thought your lawyer already advised you to do that though?

[wolffman]

Yes, we are... but after reading some of the responses in here, I started to have doubt about who we should or shouldn't sue. I have at least 3 employees and some customers who are willing to testify to this bars history of over serving... I am also a friend of the manager who just quit because of stuff like that going on... She is willing to testify to the over serving.

[Doc Sun]

I hate to tell you this but-- Our legal system is based on the law of " He Who Owns the Gold Rules." The only winners are the lawyers who will keep the case running until one of the contestants run out of money.

Rule 101A ,you can sue anyone for anything
Rule 101B, you can be sued for anything by anybody.
Rule 101C, You will never win no matter what side your own.
Rule 101 D, only the lawyers and system will profit. Lots and lots of jobs created here. A very big industry in the USA.

Never sue or get sued is a very good philosophy in this country. Other countries have a gate keeper who over sees lawsuits and tosses the ones without merit. They also have the loser pays both attorneys. That solves the problem on lawsuits without merit. It will never be cleaned up here because the public elects lawyers non stop.

If you get involved expect a run of 5-8 years, appeals etc. A sure path to cancer /heart attacks. Sleepless nights, etc.

Janklow, a big shot politician, hit and killed a motorcycle rider some time back. He was convicted of manslaughter. The heirs sued. The case is on going but a Federal Court ruled Government Employees cannot be sued if they are on government biz. No justice in this country, despite what you read in the press.

However you were involved with a drunk by choice. You can get sued for that! So who's guilty here? Stay out of bars, drugs and away from bad company is my advice from birth to death if you want a decent life.

[CaptainForest]

Geez Doc Sun, you sure have been burned by the court system. Or perhaps someone close to you has.

You seem to be very cynical of lawyers in general. True, civil suits don't always have justice, but most of the time they do.

If you're suing someone, hire a lawyer who works for a contingency…then it costs you noting but a share of the winnings.


As for you advice to Wolffman about him being sued because he was in a car with a drunk driver, that is absolutely ridiculous. Even America has some law suits that they don't allow to be brought. Any decent attorney would get that quashed immediately and Wolffman sounds like he indeed has a good attorney.

[Doc Sun]

Geez Doc Sun, you sure have been burned by the court system. Or perhaps someone close to you has.

You seem to be very cynical of lawyers in general. True, civil suits don’t always have justice, but most of the time they do.

If you’re suing someone, hire a lawyer who works for a contingency…then it costs you noting but a share of the winnings.


As for you advice to Wolffman about him being sued because he was in a car with a drunk driver, that is absolutely ridiculous. Even America has some law suits that they don’t allow to be brought. Any decent attorney would get that quashed immediately and Wolffman sounds like he indeed has a good attorney.

I note you are in Canada. A very good and decent law system unlike ours. I'm very close to the system and very familiar with our problems. Run a Google search on Janklow. How much do you think the Scott heirs have spent on this case? That's our system at work.

Just my opinions on this -- You can be sued for being in a car with a drunk driver if there is a serious problem. You will be sued if there is a fatality! You will loose even if you win because the costs of defense can put you in bankruptcy. You want case law?

Contingencies are a rip. 1/3- 1/2 for a slam dunk.

Are you a Lawyer? You know what Mr. Shakespeare said about them?

[CaptainForest]

I don't really want to get into a pissing contest with you.

I did run a Google search on Janklow.

How much did the Scott heirs spend? I don't know. But I would think 0. Perhaps they found an attorney who would work for a contingency only.

And besides, I happen to agree with him only getting 100 days. Yes, he killed someone, but he is/was a US Politician who does a lot of good for the community.

[sideoutshu]

This above post by "docsun" makes absolutely no sense in the context of your problem. Let me address the glaring misstatements and then your original question.

I hate to tell you this but-- Our legal system is based on the law of " He Who Owns the Gold Rules." The only winners are the lawyers who will keep the case running until one of the contestants run out of money. (negligence cases are paid for through a contingency fee, the plaintiff pays nothing through the duration of the suit. Plaintiff's attorneys have absolutely no incentive to drag a case out, because they don't get paid until the case is over. In fact, being a part of a large Plaintiff's firm, I can tell you the the number one goal of the plaintiff's lawyer is to move a case as fast as possible.)
Rule 101A ,you can sue anyone for anything (true, but not without incurring costs)
Rule 101B, you can be sued for anything by anybody. (redundant)Rule 101C, You will never win no matter what side your own.(this makes no sense)
Rule 101 D, only the lawyers and system will profit. Lots and lots of jobs created here. A very big industry in the USA. (see fee analysis, above)

Never sue or get sued is a very good philosophy in this country. Other countries have a gate keeper who over sees lawsuits and tosses the ones without merit. They also have the loser pays both attorneys. That solves the problem on lawsuits without merit. It will never be cleaned up here because the public elects lawyers non stop. (merit less lawsuits are disposed of through motions to dismiss, and motions for summary judgment, they never get to a jury)
If you get involved expect a run of 5-8 years (the is absolutely ridiculous. A typical auto case with one plaintiff will run its course in 1-2.5 years), appeals etc. A sure path to cancer /heart attacks. sleepless nights, etc. (cancer/heart attacks? again...ridiculous)

Janklow, a big shot politician, hit and killed a motorcycle rider some time back. He was convicted of manslaughter. The heirs sued. The case is on going but a Federal Court ruled Government Employees cannot be sued if they are on government biz. No justice in this country, despite what you read in the press. (this has nothing to do with his question)

However you were involved with a drunk by choice. You can get sued for that! (what? What on earth would he be sued for?) So who's guilty here? Stay out of bars, drugs and away from bad company is my advice from birth to death if you want a decent life.

To answer your original question. It is very common to bring a DRAM SHOP action against a bar for serving someone that they knew, or should have known was intoxicated. The bar cannot sue you for defamation based upon the contents of court papers. Accusations in legal documents are exempt from what would normally be considered defamation. (**note technically it would be libel since the papers are written, but it is a non-issue.


To DOCSUN: Please bring your irresponsible and innacurate ramblings somewhere else. If you want to preach, there are several experts reading this thread who could direct you to the appropriate place. People come to this board for help and many (at their peril) will rely on what they read without checking the source. Posting a message in the law forum with such GROSS errors and inaccuracies is completely irresponsible.

[sideoutshu]

I note you are in Canada. A very good and decent law system unlike ours. I'm very close to the system and very familiar with our problems. Run a Google search on Janklow. How much do you think the Scott heirs have spent on this case? That's our system at work.

Just my opinions on this -- You can be sued for being in a car with a drunk driver if there is a serious problem. You will be sued if there is a fatality! You will loose even if you win because the costs of defense can put you in bankruptcy. You want case law?

Contingencies are a rip. 1/3- 1/2 for a slam dunk.

Are you a Lawyer? You know what Mr. Shakespeare said about them?

Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. You are embarrassing yourself. Please move on.

[wolffman]

I am sorry I have not had a chance to respond until now. The bar in question is a bar that has a reputation for "over serving". After getting statements from past and current employees, my driver isn't the only one who has been over served by this bar. They allow customers to drink until they pass out on the bar and then they wake up and are served again. The bartenders play a game with the customers called "blind bartender". From what I understand of this game, the bar tender closes their eyes and turns towards the bottles and points a finger and the customer has to drink which ever alcohol is pointed to. This game can last for hours and then the customer is off on his way to drive through town with numerous different alcohols in their system and under extreme intoxication. The owner of the bar has played this game with customers his self. The owner finds humor in getting "certain" customers so drunk that they act like idiots so other customers can make fun of them. The owner has been taken aside and talked to by other customers about the things they see go on in "their" bar as a way to let the owner know that he is responsible for the actions of his bartenders and his self. The owner laughs and says that "it's just all in fun". The ex-manager I am friends with has also made a statement about what the "priority" was while you are on duty. Priority is to make money and give the customer whatever they want for however long they want it. My understanding is that it is not common practice to "check" your customers and find out if they are able or capable of driving theirselfs home after such activity. This has all come to light since the bar was notified of the lawsuit. My filing has brought to light the goings on in this bar and how they practice and run their business. My lawyer wants to make this business responsible for its irresponsibility towards what happened to me. Yes, I chose to visit this bar. Yes, I chose to get into a car with a driver who visited this bar. Did I know that my driver was seriously over the legal limit? No, I did not. Anyone who owns a business has a responsibility to its customers and the public. What if I chose to go to McDonalds and order a hamburger? I expect that the hamburger is going to be good to eat. What if I am served a hamburger with spoiled meat and I get seriously ill after eating it? Is that my fault because I chose to eat somewhere that I assume is looking out for my wellware? Because I chose to eat there does that make them not responsible for serving something that wasn't fresh? This isn't about money. It isn't about seeing who we can or can't sue. It's about a wrong that was done and that almost ended in trajedy. I not only broke my shoulder in this accident, but I stopped breathing twice.

[Fr_Chuck]

Ok, I don't want to be a damp rag on this case, but why does it matter that this bar served this man too much, if it had nothing to do with the accident. I can't sue the bar for serving you too much to drink unless I am damaged because of their action.

To sue someone without just cause ( standing) can lead to trouble. The person you are sueing will be able to counter sue you and get all of his legal expense paid by you.

If his car had hit the other car and it had been the drunk drivers fault, yes you could sue the heck out of the bar. And yes with your evidence you could win, but if his drinking had nothing to do at all, no way, no how, with the accident, there is no liablity at all for him to be at fault. He the driver who was drunk is not at fault, the bar can not be held at fault.

*** side note, if McDonalds sells you 3 Big Macs a day and you go to the hospital for high blood pressure, is McDonalds liable?

Now they have perhaps a criminal issue, and you should and can turn this information over to the police.

But I can't see any attorney in his right mind even bringing this case on the bar to trial unless you can prove the drunk driver had some responsibility on the accident. The only thing I can think is an attorney may hope they would give a small settlement instead of hiring an attorney and the such.

Honestly if you go through with this ( and the drunk driver was not at fault in the accident like you said he was not) the bar will and can countersue you and they will have a good case.

[sideoutshu]

Ok, I don't want to be a damp rag on this case, but why does it matter that this bar served this man too much, if it had nothing to do with the accident. I can't sue the bar for serving you too much to drink unless I am damaged because of thier action.

To sue someone without just cause ( standing) can lead to trouble. The person you are sueing will be able to counter sue you and get all of his legal expense paid by you.

If his car had hit the other car and it had been the drunk drivers fault, yes you could sue the heck out of the bar. And yes with your evidence you could win, but if his drinking had nothing to do at all, no way, no how, with the accident, there is no liablity at all for him to be at fault. He the driver who was drunk is not at fault, the bar can not be held at fault.

*** side note, if McDonalds sells you 3 Big Macs a day and you go to the hospital for high blood pressure, is McDonalds liable?

Now they have perhaps a criminal issue, and you should and can turn this information over to the police.

But I can't see any attorney in his right mind even bringing this case on the bar to trial unless you can prove the drunk driver had some responsiblity on the accident. The only thing I can think is an attorney may hope they would give a small settlement instead of hiring an attorney and the such.

Honestly if you go through with this ( and the drunk driver was not at fault in the accident like you said he was not) the bar will and can countersue you and they will have a good case.

With very few exceptions(spouse of driver, etc)... if you are a passenger in a two car accident you are suing both drivers no matter what. There are a couple reasons for this:

1. There are very few accidents that are 100% the fault of either driver. AN example in the present case. The car that our guy was traveling in may have been hit... but had the driver of our vehicle not been drinking, he may have reacted faster, thus avoiding the accident, or mitigating the damages.

2. At the point where you have to file a Summons and Complaint(very soon after the accident) no one is in a position to opine on liability to a 100% certainty. I have seen trials where a police report pinned liability on one car(note that statements made by officers in police reports as to liability are usually inadmissible unless the officer witnessed the accident), and an accident reconstruction expert convinced a jury of 60% liability the other way.

3. I don't necessarily agree with the DRAM SHOP ACT, but as a plaintiff's attorney, it is my obligation to pursue a DS claim on behalf of my client (it would be malpractice not to). I personally think the law places too much responsibility on an individual bartender who may have 100 different customers in a night to ascertain who has had "one too many". This is not to mention the issues that arise when someone has been drinking at multiple establishments in one night, or may not appear intoxicated. The cases where a bartender picks up the passed out customer and gives him a beer are the easy ones. The tough ones are where a bar has 150 patrons and two bartenders, there is a line 3-4 people back from the bar and the bartenders are expected to "eyeball" someone's level of intoxication.

So the easy answer Chuck, is that of comparative negligence and timing. I speak from my extensive practical experience in these types of cases when I say that I don't care if the Pope himself was riding shotgun and says you did nothing wrong......if you were drunk....you are getting stuck with some portion of the liability.