[InChiefsHeaven]

Originally Posted by reschief

Well, I'm not sure whether NY has a dram shop law, but I'm guessing it does. Really, I don't know if Missouri does either for that matter. In the Chiefs case, the intentional act of battery goes beyond mere negligence of allowing someone to drive drunk, IMO. I can't imagine the same sympathy for a Raider compared to this NY girl - if it goes to a jury. A KC jury may award damages to the Chiefs on a counter-claim!

dram shop rule n. a statute (Dram Shop Act) or case law in 38 states which makes a business which sells alcoholic drinks or a host who serves liquor to a drinker who is obviously intoxicated or close to it, strictly liable to anyone injured by the drunken patron or guest. To the contrary, California recently passed legislation specifically banning such strict liability. It is often hard to prove that the liquor bought or served was the specific cause of an accident (such as an automobile crash while driving home), since there is always an intervening cause, namely, the drunk.

That's always been my argument, the drunk is the problem. But nowadays, lawyers go after the money, and the drunk typically doesn't have any. But the venue does. I personally don't think the Chiefs are liable for some of their stupid drunk violent fans, but in this world, SOMEBODY has to pay. Usually, that's the guy who has the cash.