Local Business Fined After Alcohol-Related MVA
Prince George, BC – While Prince George RCMP are not releasing full details at this time, a local licensed drinking establishment has been fined under the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Act for allegedly over-serving two men, who were injured in a motor vehicle crash earlier this week.
The 35-year-old male driver is believed to have suffered a spinal cord injury in the single vehicle rollover that occurred just after 8pm on Wednesday evening near the intersection of Noranda Road and Northwood Pulpmill Road. The man remains in hospital in serious condition, while his 23-year-old male passenger suffered minimal injuries.
RCMP Media Liaison Officer, Corporal Craig Douglass, says police believe alcohol was a contributing factor in the collision and the driver is under investigation for impaired driving. "Through investigation, the Prince George RCMP believe that just prior to the collision, both the driver and the passenger were served an excessive amount of alcohol at a local licensed establishment," says Douglass.
He says investigators went to the business yesterday to serve the violation ticket against the establishment, not any individual.
"This is not something that we deal with everyday," says Douglass. "So it’s relatively – I don’t want to say it’s new – but the detachment hasn’t dealt with something like this in quite some time. More and more we’re being encouraged to look further into impaired driving investigations, into root causes and where this impairment might have occurred, so it might be a sign of things to come."
"Our ultimate goal is stopping impaired driving and licensed establishments need to take some responsibility in helping with that," says the corporal. "Ultimately, we do realize it’s still the driver that’s making those decisions, but there’s a point where they should be cut off."
The name of the business, specific violation, and cost of the fine are not yet available. Douglass says RCMP are still working with their partner groups on this investigations and more details could be forthcoming next week.
Comments
And remember that people when you serve your guests alcohol this holiday season and any other time of the year.
Poor guys…… That business served them too much alcohol and they crashed. Shame on the business for forcing them to drink too much!
PS. Guess who ICBC is going after?
What is wrong with society? People can’t take responsibility for their own actions.
Maybe McDonalds should be fined for making people fat
Just saying
I think we well see more of this as the government get out of selling booze. I always thought how the liquor stores would sell one liquor and one could go out in the parking lot, get in the car, open it and drink, then drive. if the person had and accident the store was not responsible. this thought came to me years ago when I saw cops watching bars and pubs for people leaving drunk but not at liquor [government] stores.
The RCMP will need to show why staff at the bar should have known . . .
1)how much the person had before coming in,
2)how they got there, AND
3)how they’re getting home.
It’s not reasonable for the establishment to know any of these things and the statement “but there’s a point where they should be cut off” suggests that point would have left the person able to drive. Unless he’s cut off after one drink . . . not.
One drink and getting in your weapon is too many!
It says that the fine was issued under the BC Liquor Control and Licensing Act, so I presume it’s not a criminal violation, but civil in nature. Because of that, it’s entirely possible that this Act does not require the burden of proof that Furbink is referring to.
This isn’t to be confused with the investigation into the drinking and driving itself, which the article also notes is taking place. They would appear to be two completely different things.
Obviously more details are required to figure out if the establishment should have known better. If you honestly believe that there aren’t instances where a bartender or waitress could determine if someone should be cutoff, then you’ve never been in a bar . . .
I agree with all the first six comments above.
Maybe those establishments that serve liquor will be subjected to the same kind of legal nonsense that those of us who run other businesses and employ people now are.
Where they’ll have to ‘document’ everything they tell their employees. And have the employees sign the ‘document’, to prove they’ve been told.
So they can then prove that they told their waiters and waitresses not to serve anyone who they think is already intoxicated.
But then this puts the onus on the ’employee’, who didn’t do as it was ‘documented’ he or she was told. As it should. But, as we all know, the employee doesn’t have ‘deep pockets’ to be emptied when they do something wrong, and some accident occurs as a result.
But, as we are constantly reminded, most particularly by those NOT in any business of their own, their ’employer’ DOES! And so, in spite of all this ‘documenting’, it’ll come back on the ’employer’, who failed to provide adequate ‘supervision’.
And they say they want to create ‘jobs, jobs, jobs’, and that ‘small business is the backbone of the community’? It’s already getting to the point where anyone who even think of wanting to employ anyone else should have their head examined!
Just wait til all this new ‘anti-bullying’ bullshit comes into full force!
There are so many variables in a body’s reaction to alcohol, I think it is almost impossible to determine a cutoff point.
I knew of one fellow who drank heavily, regularly and one time he started sober had just one drink and fell out of his chair. He needed help getting out to the taxi and even help getting into it.
He surprised everyone, including himself. So what was the cause of his immediate inebriation? Who knows?
That sort of thing can’t be predicted.
I think McDonalds should have a 3 cheeseburger limit to their customers too.
Kids, get into law enforcement or be a lawyer. That will be the only places hiring soon.
And too think they are considering selling alcohol in our local grocery stores.
People who drink need too take responsibility for their actions. If you want to drink fine but stay off the roads. This story could be way different if they would have hit another vehicle and killed someone.
Where are the large fines and longer driving bans? IMO a 24hr roadside ban is not enough of a deterrent. Getting behind the wheel of a car while drunk is like waving a loaded gun around with a shaky trigger finger. If have enough money to go get hammered at the bar you have enough money to call a cab or a friend for a ride.
And a bar/pub’s job is to sell booze to make money. They cannot be the judge of every single person to tell if they have had too many. Unless the person is very obviously staggering and falling down, its very difficult when to tell its too much.
Next thing they will start doing is suing the manufacturer of the car that causes the accident. People need to take personal responsibility. If I go out and get drunk, get in my car and cause an accident and injure or worse yet kill someone, the only person I have to blame is myself. No one but me made the choice to get behind the wheel. Simple as that.
Right on, socredible!
I think it is unacceptable for the licensed establishment to be charged for the driver’s stupidity. What this appears to say is that the driver is “not really at fault” for the car accident, because someone should have told him when he had had enough alcohol to drink.
More likely what we need is for every vehicle new and old to be fitted with a breathalyser; you gotta blow to go, ha ha.
metalman.
Liquor Control and Licensing Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 267
Drunkenness
43 (1) A person must not sell or give liquor to an intoxicated person or a person apparently under the influence of liquor.
(2) A licensee or the licensee’s employee must not permit
(a) a person to become intoxicated, or
(b) an intoxicated person to remain in that part of a licensed establishment where liquor is sold, served or otherwise
supplied.
====================================
Notice that none of this ties the drunkenness to whether the person drives a car. The person(s) may be with a group where one is obviously assigned as the designated driver and has limited him/herself to coffee or some alternate non-alcoholic beverage, or maybe one drink over a 2 or 3 hour stay at the liquor establishment.
So what is intoxication? Does one have to be boisterous? What about those who get very quiet and practically fall asleep when they are intoxicated and thus do not disturb anyone or may not be noticeable to anyone?
The current charges are available on the net, as are the decisions. In 2002 the Appeal Board was removed and all appeals have to go for a judicial review to the BC Supreme Court. Costly unless the owner represents him/herself.
They should fight the fine.
When do we stop blaming other people for the bad choices we make?
This guy made some bad choices, drinking too much, driving after. He’s paid for his choices with his injuries and the injuries to his friend. I’m thankful no 3rd party was involved in the injury report.
Does a server have to provide an Application for Alcohol to every patron they serve?
“Good evening Sir and welcome to Bob’s Bar and Grill. If you would like to have a seat in our waiting room and fill out and sign this 23 page declaration of alcohol already consumed and liability waiver for the poor choices you will make after we serve you, we will find you a table.”
If a bar has to cut someone off after they reach the to drunk to drive point, then they would only ever serve someone a couple 3 drinks. The bars would go out of business.
Stop blaming one person for others mistakes!!!!!
Unfortunately, we live in a society where we can blame others and sometimes hold them responsible for our bad choices. This won’t be changing anytime soon.
Good idea metalman but what is going to stop the abusive drunk from forcing someone that is sober to blow to get their car to go!
How many people know what their limit is? Everyone is different but one drink will put most people over .05. The problem is the same for all rules and regulations, people ignore them or think they are above them.
Feel sorry for the server not the guy in the hospital!
Drinking and driving can not be blamed on anyone but the driver. He made the bad choice, and apparently, with a spinal cord injury, he is paying for that.
The blame/fine/sue everybody you can approach is too “American” for my tastes. What are we becoming?
“Unfortunately, we live in a society where we can blame others and sometimes hold them responsible for our bad choices”
I think we need to blame this on the government and hold them responsible for making the bad choice to allow liquor to be served in the province.
The ultimate buck stops right there!
“If a bar has to cut someone off after they reach the to drunk to drive point, then they would only ever serve someone a couple 3 drinks. The bars would go out of business”
That’s probably why you don’t hear of these fines on a daily basis, because I would assume they are only applied in cases where it’s pretty clear to the investigators that there is little doubt that there was some degree of “negligence” on the part of the establishment that was serving the liquor.
Restaurants and bars are hardly the only institution where employees and their establishment can be held responsible for their actions (or inaction) if it’s determined that they were “negligent” or “careless” in the circumstances.
My two-bits on this convo…
I read an article about a trend of younger people not eating all day so that they can get more “bang for their buck” when out drinking on the weekend.
Two to three pints on a completely empty stomach will knock most people silly.
Is the establishment supposed to know how little their patron has eaten all day?
Portable breathalyzer coming to a licensed business near you!
Check keys at the door, blow before you get served and once more before you get your keys back!
This is exactly why the City of PG should not allow booze to be sold at the Multiplex! The Coty should not be in thie liquor business for this reason alone. The City gets fined who pays?
Could we get some realism into this conversation.
1. Alcohol in any amount is not good for the system.
2. Alcohol is basically a poison when it is consumed by humans or animals.
3. Alcohol passes through the liver into the blood stream and effects the brain.
4. Once it hits the brain the first thing that is effected is ones ability to **reason**
Soooo. If you have 4 or 5 drinks of alcohol your ability to reason is effected, and you think that you are still relatively sober, and have the ability to drive.
What people are suggesting here is that people who drink to much in a bar, are able to make a rationale decision and not drive. Some do, some don’t, however, don’t expect the right decision to come from a brain that has been **hit** by excessive alcohol.
We all know how stupid, and obnoxious people can become when inebriated. In addition we also know how their personalities can change.
I could care less whether people drink, or smoke, or whatever, however I think that they should be aware of the effects alcohol has on their brain.
Remember that people drink alcohol for the effect, otherwise the whole concept of drinking would be a non issue.
Simple out for this business is to say,” the patrons consumed alcohol “outside” the licensed premise”. There you go, prove that the establishment is responsible for there stupid actions once they walk out the door. The lawyers will battle it out and the resultant issue will be tossed out. Stupid is as stupid does.
“Check keys at the door, blow before you get served and once more before you get your keys back!”
What keys?
I guess we’re going to need key cops now.
Video cameras in parking lots to ensure they see who is driving, then if they don’t deposit their keys they don’t get served.
LMAO!
Maybe we should fine the dealership for selling a car to a drunk
Determining whether someone is nearing intoxication is a judgement call of the server. The law is clear about not serving intoxicated individuals. The public needs to learn about enjoying liquor in moderation and applying that behaviour. Until that happens servers and licensed establishments are your babysitters. Have a safe weekend.
Its hard to see the big picture when one has tunnel vision.
Do not drink and drive smoke and fly….PPP
Applying a one-size-fits-all solution doesn’t work. As has been mentioned, everybody reacts differently to alcohol — some get loud, some get quiet and sedate. Some people are naturally obnoxious without drinking a drop. To expect the server to figure out who’s who in a crowded bar is ludicrous.
Time for some adults to start acting like adults and realize that making bad adult decisions comes with consequences.
The answer is 0 alcohol tolerance for driving, period, unless, you can prove to me that drinking makes someone a better, safer driver.
Sue the government they sold the booze in the first place and encourage drinking in their promotion of the wine industry.
What a police action and no one got shot. Was the ert and the war wagon used?
servers have to take a “serving it right” course to legally serve alcohol in BC, so technically the server should know when someone has had enough but then you see stuff like this http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/quebec-waitress-says-she-was-fired-for-stopping-drunk-driver-1.1702005 so its not surprising that people get over served. I think pubs should have a DD on staff, it would be convenient.
Have you taken or read the serving it right course? The examples they give are the obvious ones. SLurred speach, bloodshot eyes, loud laughing, stumbling etc. I know from past experience that I can sit in a pub for hours and be in no shape to drive without exhibiting a single one of those symptoms. If I were to drive that would be my idiotic decision, not the pubs.
No course will make anyone infallible in terms of determining who’s drunk vs. who’s not.
I agree with others, if you are adult enough to drink, don’t drive. It’s really quite simple.
“Unfortunately, we live in a society where we can blame others and sometimes hold them responsible for our bad choices”
I think we need to blame this on the government and hold them responsible for making the bad choice to allow liquor to be served in the province.
The ultimate buck stops right there!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~“
Well if you want to look at it that way…who handed out the fine?? Guess they should have delivered it to Shirley Bond eh?
If going out for a night on the town or dinner and drinks or appies and drinks, LEAVE YOUR VEHICLE AT HOME…..CAB IT….Parking lots for drinking establishments should be EMPTY….
Overheard at yer local Tim’s, ” Sorry sir or/madam. We have to refuse to sell you a donut because we feel you are already too chubby and we care about yer heart”. Next! Could happen.
I definitely don’t agree with this at all. These dudes chose to drive while intoxicated so responsibility for the accident rests squarely on their shoulders IMO.
This nanny state BS is really starting to tick me off….
I definitely agree with this.
The law is simple. Establishments serving alcohol are allowed to do that under the condition that they cannot serve or continue to serve anyone who is intoxicated.
How they will determine that then becomes a matter for the establishment to determine. The dudes at the establishment chose to continue serving alcohol to an individual even though the law says they should have stopped.
The responsibility rests squarely on their shoulders. It m ay be shown that they have joint responsibility with respect to the accident if it is shown that it happened due to DUI.
Your a Moron Gus ……..U may as well Close every bar in BC with that logic
I’m the moron? You mean the people who created the law are the morons.
Here is the law one more time:
==========================
Liquor Control and Licensing Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 267
Drunkenness
43 (1) A person must not sell or give liquor to an intoxicated person or a person apparently under the influence of liquor.
(2) A licensee or the licensee’s employee must not permit
(a) a person to become intoxicated, or
(b) an intoxicated person to remain in that part of a licensed establishment where liquor is sold, served or otherwise supplied.
=======================================
Please notice that it does not say anything about people who are going to be driving. It says anyone who is drunk should no longer be served, even if a taxi is going to pick them up.
So what you are saying, doggie 62, is that the liquor establishments are there so that people can get drunk. Well, that is not what the law says. I am just the messenger. I am just the one telling you what the law says.
So please direct your comment to the right people.
I’ve been in bars and have seen people get cut-off. I’ve been in night clubs and have seen people get escorted out of the club because they couldn’t stand anymore. I’ve even been to clubs and seen bouncers make sure that patrons find their way to a cab and have it paid for when they were escorted out.
I think those places were attempting to abide by the law and in some cases, probably going beyond what was required of them. Why can they do it and others can’t?
Must be that nanny state that has been around in BC for 17 years, LOL.
Read the following decision regarding an intoxicated person.
Please note that there is no definition of intoxication based on Blood Alcohol content. That is left for the Motor Vehicle Act.
Intoxication under the Liquor Licensing Act is something very different and much more closely aligned to what most people understand by words such as drunk and intoxicated. It means that there are obvious visible signs of intoxication.
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CD0QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pssg.gov.bc.ca%2Flclb%2Fenforcements%2Fpdf%2F2012%2FEH12-067.pdf&ei=1D92Uuu6IYmO2AW40oHwBw&usg=AFQjCNHJsJmfR4Z4l6_bQnQTg9s1Nwjz9g&sig2=NBWUvpuMbBPNGTdb1ePlcg&bvm=bv.55819444,d.b2I
Here is another one:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pssg.gov.bc.ca%2Flclb%2Fenforcements%2Fpdf%2F2011%2FEH11-041.pdf&ei=1D92Uuu6IYmO2AW40oHwBw&usg=AFQjCNHnQXXfMAFeEr5Rf7BKAl13-7UI9w&sig2=oDhlSrFs1zHwAp-8cJNa2A
Comments for this article are closed.