civil liability for causing traffic jam

[Matt Carter]

I know that bad traffic is usually an annoyance with no legal
remedy. The causes are often hard to pin down and the damages
are often small for each affected person. But does it ever
happen that people can successfully sue for getting stuck in
traffic? For example, if someone causes a fatal car accident on
a major artery leading to an airport and police are forced to
shut down the road for several hours to investigate the accident,
many people will miss their flights and be charged hundreds of
dollars each in rebooking and hotel fees. Would those people be
able to successfully sue and recover from the person who caused
the accident? Or does the law just say "tough luck" in a
situation like that?

[Gordon Burditt]

> I know that bad traffic is usually an annoyance with no legal
> remedy. The causes are often hard to pin down and the damages
> are often small for each affected person.

*If* you've got a case, this is what class action suits are
supposed to be for.

> But does it ever
> happen that people can successfully sue for getting stuck in
> traffic?

You might manage to sue if you can prove that the person causing
the obstruction intended to cause *YOU* to suffer delay (and perhaps
worse). Not people in general, not someone else, *YOU*. Say,
because they wanted to catch you in traffic (say, on motorcycles)
and steal the diamonds you are delivering as a courier while you
are trapped on the road.

You might manage to sue if you can prove that the manufacturer of
the car you were using had design defects that caused it to die
in the middle of a freeway, with perhaps consequences of getting
hit repeatedly.

> For example, if someone causes a fatal car accident on
> a major artery leading to an airport and police are forced to
> shut down the road for several hours to investigate the accident,
> many people will miss their flights and be charged hundreds of
> dollars each in rebooking and hotel fees. Would those people be
> able to successfully sue and recover from the person who caused
> the accident? Or does the law just say "tough luck" in a
> situation like that?

If the person who caused the accident is the one who died in it,
you're going to have trouble proving it was his intent to die,
unless it really was vehicular suicide, and even then it's hard
to prove.

If you can prove that someone was hired by the hotels or airlines
to cause such a delay to increase fees, maybe. Good luck trying
to prove it.

It's going to be difficult to prove that if the accident had not
happened, you would not have missed your flight anyway. Perhaps
security would have backlogged. Perhaps you were saved from
circumstances where the plane would have crashed (with you on it)
if it had not been for the accident.

[micky]

Matt Carter <r_q_eins...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Would those people be able to successfully
> sue and recover from the person who caused
> the accident? Or does the law just say
> "tough luck" in a situation like that?

I don't know, but I was amazed to find out that,
in NYS at least, if you hit those realllly big
plastic yellow barrels filled with whatever, they
place between the main highway and an exit ramp,
so you won't hit the metal restraining rail they
make you pay for the barrels, and they were two
or three hundred dollars each 30 years ago. And
you can break several at one time.

[Gene E. Utterback, EA, ABA]

"micky" wrote:

>I don't know, but I was amazed to find out that,
>in NYS at least, if you hit those realllly big
>plastic yellow barrels filled with whatever, they
>place between the main highway and an exit ramp,
>so you won't hit the metal restraining rail they
>make you pay for the barrels, and they were two
>or three hundred dollars each 30 years ago. And
>you can break several at one time.

I witnessed a similar issue here in Maryland just
a few days ago. The neighbor suffered a chimney
fire. The local VFD responded and deployed the
hoses. To connect to the hydrant they had to run
the hose across the road. Another neighbor pulled
out his driveway, failed to see the hose in the
street (because he was looking at the fire) and
when his front wheels went over the hose and
"bumped" he stopped to see what he hit. When he
stopped his car muffler contacted the fire hose
and melted a hole in it.

The county police were on site ticket the driver
(though I'm not sure for what) and made it clear
that he would be getting a bill from the VFD for
the replacement cost of the section of hose that
he damaged.

Gene E. Utterback, EA, RFC, ABA

[Mike]

Gordon Burditt wrote:

>> I know that bad traffic is usually an annoyance with no legal
>> remedy. The causes are often hard to pin down and the damages
>> are often small for each affected person.

> *If* you've got a case, this is what class action suits are
> supposed to be for.

>> But does it ever
>> happen that people can successfully sue for getting stuck in
>> traffic?

> You might manage to sue if you can prove that the person causing
> the obstruction intended to cause *YOU* to suffer delay (and perhaps
> worse). Not people in general, not someone else, *YOU*. Say,
> because they wanted to catch you in traffic (say, on motorcycles)
> and steal the diamonds you are delivering as a courier while you
> are trapped on the road.

I don't think it would require that you showed the person
INTENDED harm to you but simply that harm did befall you
AND it was proximal to AND caused by the auto accident.

Let's say someone caused an accident and it just so
happened that your car wasn't touched at all but the
chain reaction of other vehicles was such that your
car was completely surrounded by wrecked cars (And
you're probably saying "Yeah, right. How in the ****
would that happen?" Semi jackknifed and turned sideways
across 3 lanes. You, in the middle lane, stopped JUST
short of hitting him but the semi's in both lanes on
either side of you did hit him. Another semi jackknifed
behind all of you and slid up sideways against the two
semi's on either side. See? It CAN happen *laugh*)

Now you can't get to the airport due to the delay. You
were carrying money to pay the doctor so he would then
operate on your poor grandmother. Because he wasn't
paid, he didn't operate and she died. She was going to
pay your college tuition but forgot to change her will
and now all the money goes to your brother alone who
says "Tuition? HAH! Go suck an egg." Now you don't get
the degree that would have allowed you to cure cancer
and I die of cancer. Can my wife sue the truck driver
for wrongful death for me dying? Of course not. Cause
and effect are WAY too separated. Can YOU sue him for
the value of the airline ticket? Ehhhhh, maybe, since
the cause was MUCH closer in the chain to the effect.

[Mike Jacobs]

"Gene E. Utterback, EA, ABA" <G...@AllianceTax.Com> wrote:

> "micky" wrote:

> >in NYS at least, if you hit those realllly big
> >plastic yellow barrels filled with whatever, they
> >place between the main highway and an exit ramp,
> >so you won't hit the metal restraining rail they
> >make you pay for the barrels, and they were two
> >or three hundred dollars each 30 years ago. And
> >you can break several at one time.

It's the rule in most states AFAIK. A motorist can be cited for
"damaging state property" even if there is no other damage to his or
anyone else's car in a collision with the immovable object, and while
it is not a crime if done without criminal intent, it is certainly a
civil debt as to which the state has a right to be repaid. In some
states negligence of the driver who hit the object must be proven in
order for the state's claim to prevail; in other states the law may
specify that it is a strict-liability matter -- you break it, you
bought it. Ditto if you actually run into and bend the metal
guardrail, or knock over a traffic sign or light pole, or crash thru
the red-and-white barber-pole-striped arm at a tollbooth or RR
crossing or drawbridge. _Somebody_ has to pay for those things, and
the taxpayers are quite happy to fob that duty off onto the person who
actually caused the damage.

<snip>

> fire. The local VFD responded and deployed the
> hoses. To connect to the hydrant they had to run
> the hose across the road. Another neighbor pulled
> out his driveway, failed to see the hose in the
> street (because he was looking at the fire) and
> when his front wheels went over the hose and
> "bumped" he stopped to see what he hit. When he
> stopped his car muffler contacted the fire hose
> and melted a hole in it.
>
> The county police were on site ticket the driver
> (though I'm not sure for what) and made it clear
> that he would be getting a bill from the VFD for
> the replacement cost of the section of hose that
> he damaged.

Yep. Same deal, although here the claimant is a semi-private entity,
the VFD, and not the county or state government. Same applies if your
car you are operating contacts and causes damage to non-moving
property of anybody else, public or private -- you would owe your
neighbor if you ran into his parked car and dented it, or you would
owe the local phone company or power company or cable company if you
knocked over one of their utility poles.

The bigger question, which OP raised but which sort of got lost as
this thread developed, is, HOW FAR in remoteness from that original
event must we go before the negligent actor's legal liability for the
factually provable consequences of his actions gets cut off? Is the
guy who knocked down a power pole responsible to the electric company
or to its customers for the hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost
revenues a factory incurred when their production line shut down, or
for the losses incurred when an email that was supposed to have sealed
a million-dollar deal could not be sent in time due to the power
outage?

Probably not. Here we are dealing with the concept of "proximate
cause" which relies on common sense and society's collective
understanding of just how directly as opposed to remotely an act must
be causally connected with its consequences in order to hold the actor
legally liable for those costs. Generally, if the "chain of
causation" begins to resemble a Rube Goldberg cartoon, it's gone too
far to reasonably hold the original negligent actor responsible for
all the remote consequences. But, exactly where to draw the line is
a matter for the judge and the jury. The judge, uipon a motion to
dismiss or for summary judgment, decides whether the causal connection
is direct enough to even allow the issue to be submitted to a jury;
and if it gets that far, the jury decides whether to conclude the
connection is direct enough to hold the defendant responsible, or not.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal
matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a
private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685

[Rich Carreiro]

Well, let's be more direct about the question.

Say some group like, say Critical Mass, decides to
perform one of its "corking" operations (where they
ride around and around in an intersection, blocking
the automobile traffic) without any sort of permit
(and has a history of doing so), and the resulting
traffic jam delays an ambulance and the patient dies.

Is there any cause of action (wrongful death or what
have you) by the next of kin against the riders and
the group as a whole?

--
Rich Carreiro rlc-...@rlcarr.com

[A Michigan Attorney]

The hardest element for an inconvenienced motorist
to support in this scenario would be duty. An
actor (not in the thespian sense) owes a duty of
reasonable care to a person who could foreseeably
be injured by the actor's conduct. But reasonable
minds often disagree on what is foreseeable, and
some states put additional limits on duty --
Michigan, for example, holds that a social host
owes no duty to a motorist who may be injured by
a driver who became drunk on alcoholic beverages
provided by the host.

In motoring cases, it's fair to say that the
driver of a moving vehicle owes a duty to other
motorists and pedestrians who foreseeably could
be struck by the vehicle before it comes to rest
naturally from the forces of gravity and
friction with the ground if the driver were to
stop providing control input. But as to people
whose bodies or property are not within the
immediately foreseeable paths of the moving
vehicle, a duty is probably not owed.

[Barry Gold]

Let's see... They are willfully disobeying traffic
laws, for the purpose of "making a statement" and
"having an impact". This denies other people the
use of the public roadways. It's hard to see how
liability would _not_ attach if somebody suffers
significant harm.

Yes, the courts allow some leeway for speech,
including some speech-like actions (e.g., burning
a US flag, nude dancing in a "gentleman's club").
But government has a right to place content-neutral
"time, place, and manner restrictions" on speech,
as long as they don't discriminate based on what
is being said.

You can state your views -- but not so loudly
that you rattle people's windows or damage their
hearing. You can conduct a demonstration -- but
if you are going to block traffic you need a
"parade permit" so the police can coordinate and
direct traffic around the blockage. (But if a
city requires parade permits, the fee must be
reasonable and they must issue them to anybody
who pays the fee. They can discriminate based on
time of day -- "No, you can't block Main Street
at 5PM on Wednesday, do it at 2PM instead." but
not based on message -- "Pro-Israel groups can
have a permit, but the American Nazi Party cannot.")

So if somebody cares enough to take it to court,
I'd expect they would win.

Caveats: From what I read, Critical Mass does not
have any formal structure. This means there is
no "group as a whole" to be sued, only individuals.
If you can identify the leaders, you might sue them
successfully -- but the group appears to have no
fixed leadership.

However, if you can identify the individuals who
are engaging in the "corking," you can sue them
with a high probability of winning. Not as
difficult as it sounds: the chances are somebody
took photos of them with a digital camera (or
cellphone) and posted them on the web. It may
not be worth the trouble for a $400 airplane
ticket. But for a human life, typically valued
at $500,000 and up, I think it would be worth
while for the PLaintiff's lawyer to have a PI
find the photos, identify the "corkers", and sue
them.

And I'm betting that will put an end to the
"corking" in pretty short order.

[deadrat]

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> Rich Carreiro wrote:

>> Well, let's be more direct about the question.
>> Say some group like, say Critical Mass, decides to
>> perform one of its "corking" operations (where they
>> ride around and around in an intersection, blocking
>> the automobile traffic) without any sort of permit
>> (and has a history of doing so), and the resulting
>> traffic jam delays an ambulance and the patient dies.
>>
>> Is there any cause of action (wrongful death or what
>> have you) by the next of kin against the riders and
>> the group as a whole?

> Let's see... They are willfully disobeying traffic
> laws, for the purpose of "making a statement" and
> "having an impact". This denies other people the
> use of the public roadways. It's hard to see how
> liability would _not_ attach if somebody suffers
> significant harm.

I think you've got the wrong idea. Critical Mass
is a group bicycle ride. The participants don't
try to make statements or have an impact.
Corking is the tactic of a few riders blocking
streets perpendicular to the ride route, so the
rest of the group can pass safely through the
intersection, even if that means some of the
group passes through a red light. Obviously,
the "corked" streets wouldn't be able to go on
their green light.

Any harm has to be reasonably foreseeable and
the damage proximate enough to the harm. If
CM is blocking the entrance to an emergency
room, that seems like a slam dunk. A random
intersection, not so much, but possible. I
wouldn't think most CM rides are large enough
to take more than an extra light.
>
<snipped: First Amendment considerations/>

> Caveats: From what I read, Critical Mass does not
> have any formal structure. This means there is
> no "group as a whole" to be sued, only individuals.
> If you can identify the leaders, you might sue them
> successfully -- but the group appears to have no
> fixed leadership.

Right. Ride routes are adopted by consensus
at the time of the ride, and for the corking
to work, the corkers are just the first
riders to the intersection.

> However, if you can identify the individuals who
> are engaging in the "corking," you can sue them

> with a high probability of winning. <snip/>

Good luck with that. My guess is that they all
wear helmets.

[Robert Bonomi]

A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Michigan, for example, holds that a social host
> owes no duty to a motorist who may be injured by
> a driver who became drunk on alcoholic beverages
> provided by the host.

Excuse me?

I see no such exemption in the language of MCL 436.1801 regarding
'... giving alcoholic liquor to minor or to person visibly intoxicated."

sec 801 (3) reads, in part:
"Except as otherwise provided in this section, an individual who suffers
damage or who is personally injured by a minor or visibly intoxicated
person by reason of the unlawful selling, giving, or furnishing of
alcoholic liquor to the minor or visibly intoxicated person, if the
unlawful sale is proven to be a proximate cause of the damage, injury
or death, or the spouse, child, parent, or guardian of that individual,
shall have a right of action in his or her name against the person who
by selling, giving, or furnishing the alcoholic liquor has caused or
contributed to the intoxication of the person or who has caused or
contributed to the damage, injury, or death."

Now, according to sec 801 (6) a _liquor_license_holder_
liable under (3) has the right to indemnification from
the alleged visibly intoxicated person for all damages
awarded against the licensee.

I don't see any exception for a 'social host'.

[Seth]

Barry Gold <Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> Rich Carreiro wrote:

>> Well, let's be more direct about the question.
>>
>> Say some group like, say Critical Mass, decides to
>> perform one of its "corking" operations (where they
>> ride around and around in an intersection, blocking
>> the automobile traffic) without any sort of permit
>> (and has a history of doing so), and the resulting
>> traffic jam delays an ambulance and the patient dies.
>>
>> Is there any cause of action (wrongful death or what
>> have you) by the next of kin against the riders and
>> the group as a whole?

> Let's see... They are willfully disobeying traffic
> laws, for the purpose of "making a statement" and
> "having an impact".

Suppose they obey all traffic laws, riding around a
block, staying in the right lane, stopping at all
traffic lights, etc. They are still jamming up
traffic, but not violating any particular laws
(except the law of averages, which isn't enforceable
in court).

Now, are they liable for damages?

What if a few thousand people were all traveling to
a football game, with the same result?

Seth

[A Michigan Attorney]

bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

> A Michigan Attorney <miattor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Michigan, for example, holds that a social host
>> owes no duty to a motorist who may be injured by
>> a driver who became drunk on alcoholic beverages
> provided by the host.

> Excuse me?
>
> I see no such exemption in the language of MCL 436.1801 regarding
> '... giving alcoholic liquor to minor or to person visibly intoxicated."

"Furthermore, liability for negligently furnishing alcohol does not
extend to social hosts who serve alcohol to adults who subsequently
injure third parties. Ribbens v. Jawahir, 175 Mich.App. 540, 542, 438
N.W.2d 252 (1988); Whittaker v. Jet-Way, Inc., 152 Mich.App. 795, 797,
394 N.W.2d 111 (1986). See also Longstreth v. Gensel, 423 Mich. 675,
377 N.W.2d 804 (1985)." Kuehn v. Edward Rose & Sons, 189 Mich.App.
288, 290; 472 N.W.2d 59 (1991).

[Robert Bonomi]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

> I think you've got the wrong idea. Critical Mass
> is a group bicycle ride. The participants don't
> try to make statements or have an impact.

They say differently. <wry grin>

> Corking is the tactic of a few riders blocking
> streets perpendicular to the ride route, so the
> rest of the group can pass safely through the
> intersection, even if that means some of the
> group passes through a red light.

You've obviously never been caught in one of those
ILLEGAL 'corkings'.

Some years back, I was trapped by one in downtown Chicago
*late* one evening. They stopped the cross traffic for
a (timed) 15+ MINUTES.

> the "corked" streets wouldn't be able to go on
> their green light.
>
> Any harm has to be reasonably foreseeable and
> the damage proximate enough to the harm. If
> CM is blocking the entrance to an emergency
> room, that seems like a slam dunk. A random
> intersection, not so much, but possible. I
> wouldn't think most CM rides are large enough
> to take more than an extra light.

I submit that you "don't know what you don't
know". (see above)

[Mike]

deadrat wrote:

> Barry Gold<Barry...@ca.rr.com> wrote:

>> Let's see... They are willfully disobeying traffic
>> laws, for the purpose of "making a statement" and
>> "having an impact". This denies other people the
>> use of the public roadways. It's hard to see how
>> liability would _not_ attach if somebody suffers
>> significant harm.

> I think you've got the wrong idea. Critical Mass
> is a group bicycle ride. The participants don't
> try to make statements or have an impact.
> Corking is the tactic of a few riders blocking
> streets perpendicular to the ride route, so the
> rest of the group can pass safely through the
> intersection, even if that means some of the
> group passes through a red light. Obviously,
> the "corked" streets wouldn't be able to go on
> their green light.
>
> Any harm has to be reasonably foreseeable and
> the damage proximate enough to the harm. If
> CM is blocking the entrance to an emergency
> room, that seems like a slam dunk. A random
> intersection, not so much, but possible. I
> wouldn't think most CM rides are large enough
> to take more than an extra light.

Remaining stationary in the intersection and
blocking other traffic (or otherwise impeding
the normal flow of traffic) IS a crime (or at
least an infraction.). It may not cause them
to be liable for someone's heart attack due to
being stuck in traffic but it's still illegal
and, IMHO, rude. Cyclists are supposed to
obey the EXACT same laws as cars do as far as
driving in the proper lane, stopping for red
lights/stop signs, etc.)

[deadrat]

bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:

> deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

>> I think you've got the wrong idea. Critical Mass
>> is a group bicycle ride. The participants don't
>> try to make statements or have an impact.

> They say differently.

Well, they do say they want to demonstrate that
public roads are not just for automobile traffic.
But I don't think they make political statements
like OWS

> <wry grin>

Thank you for not using emoticons.

>> Corking is the tactic of a few riders blocking
>> streets perpendicular to the ride route, so the
>> rest of the group can pass safely through the
>> intersection, even if that means some of the
>> group passes through a red light.

> You've obviously never been caught in one of those
> ILLEGAL 'corkings'.

Well, no, I've never been caught in a corking, but
I don't see how that's obvious from my description.

And, yes, corkings are illegal (and may even be
ILLEGAL), although the group claims that Idaho
law allows them. (I couldn't find anything to
substantiate that in the Idaho vehicle code.)

> Some years back, I was trapped by one in
> downtown Chicago *late* one evening. They
> stopped the cross traffic for> a (timed)
> 15+ MINUTES.

>> the "corked" streets wouldn't be able to go on
>> their green light.
>>
>> Any harm has to be reasonably foreseeable and
>> the damage proximate enough to the harm. If
>> CM is blocking the entrance to an emergency
>> room, that seems like a slam dunk. A random
>> intersection, not so much, but possible. I
>> wouldn't think most CM rides are large enough
>> to take more than an extra light.

> I submit that you "don't know what you don't
> know". (see above)

Some of the rides are large events with claims
of tens of thousands of riders, some of them in
urban areas no doubt cause inconvenience, but
I've been caught longer than 15 minutes in
Chicago auto gridlock. Going by CM's own
propaganda, most groups are small.

I do know that what I don't know I don't know
exceeds even what I know I don't know, but get
back to me when a CM rider loses a wrongful
death suit for corking an intersection far
from an emergency room.

[Robert Bonomi]

A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>> A Michigan Attorney <miattor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Michigan, for example, holds that a social host
>>> owes no duty to a motorist who may be injured by
>>> a driver who became drunk on alcoholic beverages
>> provided by the host.

>> Excuse me?
>>
>> I see no such exemption in the language of MCL 436.1801 regarding
>> '... giving alcoholic liquor to minor or to person visibly intoxicated."

> "Furthermore, liability for negligently furnishing alcohol does not
> extend to social hosts who serve alcohol to adults who subsequently
> injure third parties. Ribbens v. Jawahir, 175 Mich.App. 540, 542, 438
> N.W.2d 252 (1988); Whittaker v. Jet-Way, Inc., 152 Mich.App. 795, 797,

> 94 N.W.2d 111 (1986). See also Longstreth v. Gensel, 423 Mich. 675,
> 377 N.W.2d 804 (1985)." Kuehn v. Edward Rose & Sons, 189 Mich.App.
> 288, 290; 472 N.W.2d 59 (1991).

I see. The court rewrote the law. 'judicial activism'
at it's worst.

Based on the actual statutory language, you can,
no doubt, see why I was puzzled.

Thanks for the clarification.

[deadrat]

bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
> A Michigan Attorney <miatt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> bon...@host122.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
>>> A Michigan Attorney <miattor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Michigan, for example, holds that a social host
>>>> owes no duty to a motorist who may be injured by
>>>> a driver who became drunk on alcoholic beverages
>>> provided by the host.

>>> Excuse me?
>>>
>>> I see no such exemption in the language of MCL 436.1801 regarding
>>> '... giving alcoholic liquor to minor or to person visibly intoxicated."

>> "Furthermore, liability for negligently furnishing alcohol does not
>> extend to social hosts who serve alcohol to adults who subsequently
>> injure third parties. Ribbens v. Jawahir, 175 Mich.App. 540, 542, 438
>> N.W.2d 252 (1988); Whittaker v. Jet-Way, Inc., 152 Mich.App. 795, 797,
>> 94 N.W.2d 111 (1986). See also Longstreth v. Gensel, 423 Mich. 675,
>> 377 N.W.2d 804 (1985)." Kuehn v. Edward Rose & Sons, 189 Mich.App.
>> 288, 290; 472 N.W.2d 59 (1991).

> I see. The court rewrote the law. 'judicial activism' at it's worst.

I don't think you see; the court didn't rewrite the law; and this isn't
an example of judicial activism. I call it 0 for 3, but I'm hoping that
Michigan Attorney will correct any of my misunderstandings.

The Michigan Dram Shop Law (MCL 436.1801) was recodified in 1998, and I'm
assuming here that the language was the same in 1985 when the Michigan Supreme
Court ruled in Longstreth v Gensel that "social host" liability can obtain when
private persons give liquor to minors but declined to apply that rule to giving
liquor to adults.

436.1801(3) provides that someone injured by an intoxicated minor or a visibly
intoxicated person by reason of the *unlawful* selling, giving, or furnishing of
liquor has a cause of action against the *person* who sold, gave, or furnished
the booze if the *unlawful sale* is the *proximate* cause of the injury.

(The emphasis is mine.)

This isn't the most pellucid language. First of all, the rest of the dram shop
law concerns licensees solely. Only section (3) mentions general persons. Next
"unlawful selling" doesn't apply to social hosts as actors, and unlawful giving
only applies generally to minors as recipients. Finally, notice that a
successful action takes an unlawful sale and one that is a proximate cause.
When a drunk injures someone, Michigan common law makes the proximate cause the
drinking, not the serving.

The legislature didn't change the common law. If it had, then it would have let
the trier of fact determine whether the proximate cause was the serving and set
the standard of care required to hold the server liable. So what would you have
the court do, since you so strenuously object to the court writing new law?

What the court did was quite conservative. It took section 3 at face value, and
concluded that the legislature intended to regulate social hosts, and not just
those in the business of selling liquor. But it also concluded that a social
host's responsibility extended only to not serving minors. In making that
conclusion it 1) looked to Michigan's constitutional amendment raising the
drinking age to 21 and 2) the legislature's prohibition against anyone (except
prescribing doctors) providing liquor to minors. 1 got them legislative intent,
and 2 got them a means to determine negligence since breaking a law is prima
facie evidence of same. (Remember that it's against the law for anyone to give
liquor to minors, but only against the law for licensees to give liquor to the
visibly intoxicated.)

[Stuart A. Bronstein]

In fact it is you who have failed to read the statutory language
correctly.

Section 801(b)(2) says,

"A retail licensee shall not directly, individually, or by a clerk,
agent, or servant sell, furnish, or give alcoholic liquor to a
minor except as otherwise provided in this act. A retail licensee
shall not directly or indirectly, individually or by a clerk,
agent, or servant sell, furnish, or give alcoholic liquor to a
person who is visibly intoxicated."

That only prohibits commercial (not social) hosts from serving
someone visibly intoxicated.

Then section 801(b)(3) says,

"Except as otherwise provided in this section, an individual who
suffers damage or who is personally injured by a minor or visibly
intoxicated person by reason of the unlawful selling, giving, or
furnishing of alcoholic liquor to the minor or visibly intoxicated
person, if the unlawful sale is proven to be a proximate cause of

the damage, injury, or death, or the spouse, child, parent, or

guardian of that individual, shall have a right of action in his or
her name against the person who by selling, giving, or furnishing
the alcoholic liquor has caused or contributed to the intoxication
of the person or who has caused or contributed to the damage,

injury, or death. In an action pursuant to this section, the
plaintiff shall have the right to recover actual damages in a sum
of not less than $50.00 in each case in which the court or jury
determines that intoxication was a proximate cause of the damage,
injury, or death."

Notice that it says liability only applies to someone "unlawfully"
furnishing alcohol. Under the prior paragraph, a social host
serving someone who is visibly intoxicated is not doing so
unlawfully.

___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

[Seth]

deadrat <a...@b.com> wrote:

> This isn't the most pellucid language. First
> of all, the rest of the dram shop law concerns
> licensees solely. Only section (3) mentions
> general persons. Next "unlawful selling"
> doesn't apply to social hosts as actors, and
> unlawful giving only applies generally to
> minors as recipients.

Wouldn't it also apply to a bar giving a free
drink to an intoxicated patron? (E.g. a
bartender has a policy of giving every 10th
drink free to customers who tip.)

Seth

[deadrat]

I wasn't clear, so I shouldn't be complaining about the
lack of pellucid language, eh?

When I wrote "generally," I meant that the only general
rule (i.e., universally applicable and thus applicable
to social hosts) against giving away liquor bans giving
liquor to minors. In the specific instance of licensees,
it's also illegal to give liquor to visibly intoxicated
adults, but that doesn't apply to social hosts.

[John F. Carr]

Twice in the 1990s a Canadian trucker carrying a load of lumber
hit a support beam on the double-decker bridge carrying I-93 into
Boston. After the worse of these incidents the traffic jam shut
down a nearby bridge on which tolls were collected. The state
sent a demand to the employer or insurance company for compensation
for lost toll revenue.

The "lumberjerk" affair dropped out of the newspapers before a
settlement or verdict could be reported.

It is possible that somebody in government remembers whether the
lost tolls were paid. The Tobin Bridge (the toll bridge) belonged
to the Port Authority at the time but the Department of Transportation
now. The I-93 bridge belonged to the Highway Department and has since
been replaced.

--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)

[John F. Carr]

Gene E. Utterback, EA, ABA <Ge...@AllianceTax.Com> wrote:

> [...] When he stopped, his car muffler contacted the

> fire hose and melted a hole in it.
>
> The county police were on site ticket the driver

> (though I'm not sure for what) [...]

In Massachusetts the law specifically prohibits driving
over fire hoses. Maryland may have a similar law.

--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)