[Fishinkeylargo]

The full story: Man who survived being intentionally set on fire speaks out - WSVN-TV - 7NEWS Miami Ft. Lauderdale News, Weather, Deco

From the story:

Gonzalez and his family are now hoping their story will spread awareness in the community to encourage responsible drinking and safer bars. "The family is very strong, and there's obviously a lot of love, and they've been fighting for one another," said Brenner. "[Jose] just really wants people to understand the risks involved with people who are extremely intoxicated and wants, hopefully, if one bar owner can understand what can happen when you don't have the right things in place, exactly what happened to him that night."

The arsonist, who was identified as Stuart Collins of North Carolina, was arrested and is awaiting trial. Surveillance video from inside J.J.'s Doghouse shows him stumbling around the bar.

The Gonzalez family has filed a lawsuit against J.J.'s Doghouse for not having more safety protocols in place for their patrons.

The owner of the bar was not available for comment.

This is a horrible crime and just sickens me. Putting the crime aside; What responsibilities should a business owner have in regards to customer safety outside the building? This is a generally safe community and I am willing to bet crime statistics are well below the national average.

This lawsuit has the potential to make every business owner in the state of Florida responsible for everyone on their property. If that happens, would it extend to cities, counties, and the state for my safety while on their properties. If I am swimming at the county park and get bit by a shark, should the county be responsible for not having more safety protocols in place? Would it extend to me as a home owner? Lets say a kid is playing in the street and a car starts coming down the street, the kid steps onto the edge of my property to get out of the way. The car hits the kid, should I be responsible for not having more safety protocols in place?

I guess this is more of a rant then anything. I am so tired of everyone wanting to place the blame on someone other then their self and/or the criminal.

 

[MOONDAWG]

Hrump...

 

[gbusmech]

 

[tazelmo]

View attachment 113601

Message approved.........

 

[Smokewagon]

In our society today, no matter the incident, many will say, I did this or that, because of someone else. It wasn't my fault.

Usually it is your fault, and sometimes, stuff just happens.

 

[Falstaff]

This is an attempt to grab money from the bar's insurance company. No doubt the bar is covered by dram shop insurance. Usually the amount that a person can recover from a bar when injured by an over-served person is limited. Bars do have a duty, to some extent, to not serve an intoxicated person. If a bar serves a drunk and the drunk leaves the bar and crosses the center line and hurts someone, then the bar may be on the hook for some of the damages. One can argue that the drunk driver scenario is reasonably foreseeable. One can argue that a patron setting another patron on fire is not reasonably foreseeable. I think that will come down to a question of whether there has been prior criminal activity in the parking lot, outside the bar, etc. Seems like a reach to me, but I don't know anything about the case other than what the link showed. The insurance company may settle for a relatively low amount to save themselves the costs of litigation.

 

[nedstockton]

Never argue with a drunk.

 

[samkent]

If you are a caucasian working male you are responsible. Period. End of story.
Didn't you get the memo?

 

[leftcoastrebel]

This is an attempt to grab money from the bar's insurance company. No doubt the bar is covered by dram shop insurance. Usually the amount that a person can recover from a bar when injured by an over-served person is limited. Bars do have a duty, to some extent, to not serve an intoxicated person. If a bar serves a drunk and the drunk leaves the bar and crosses the center line and hurts someone, then the bar may be on the hook for some of the damages. One can argue that the drunk driver scenario is reasonably foreseeable. One can argue that a patron setting another patron on fire is not reasonably foreseeable. I think that will come down to a question of whether there has been prior criminal activity in the parking lot, outside the bar, etc. Seems like a reach to me, but I don't know anything about the case other than what the link showed. The insurance company may settle for a relatively low amount to save themselves the costs of litigation.

Essentially that's it in a nutshell.

Remember, before panic sets in, civil lawsuits do not "Make laws" nor do they change things greatly until, and unless, they reach a higher court in the appeals process whereby some fundamental principle is recognized that becomes a precedent. At the initial trial leave a case is generally tried on the singular and unique circumstances involved. Only if a precedent, almost always from a higher Court, can be found will one side or the other attempt to apply it.

For every time we hear in the news the phrased "based on another case", or "citing the precedent of..." There are probably two dozen attempts to insert a a precedent in cases that have been rejected by the Court because of different facts in the case at trial.

 

[RonPT24/7]

This is the way i look at it and side with the law . Here in Texas if a person is given more alchoholic beverages after it is determined they have had too much then the person issuing the beverage is guilty as charged and i don't feel that is wrong at all . Also even if a waiter/waitress recognises an individual has had too much it is their responsibility to make it known and refuse anymore beverages to that given individual , but if they continue serving anyway and that individual causes bodily harm or distruction to any person or property then that waiter/waitress is responsible and therefore since they work for a given business that sells alchoholic beverages they are helt liable also .

There are many cases where individual leaves a business too drunk to drive and have caused an accident that has taken someones life and in a law suite it has lead all the way back to the place of business or residence where the guilty individual was served too much .

There was a family here in midland that owned a reputable steakhouse , the parents allowed their teenage son to have a graduation party at their house in the country , and allowed alchol at the party and they give their permission . Later that night a group of teens left going home and the driver had too much to drink , had an accident and some lives were lost . After a long court battle the parents ended up being sued and they lost all their wealth , lost their resturant and spent time in prison .

Now really think about it , that drunk man stubbling around in the place of business there in Florida should have been noticed and rejected before harm was done but since no one did what should have been done then rightfully that place of business and employees are guilty as charged . Facts are Facts .

Now on the other hand if someone is walking down the street and a drunk driver comes down the road and the walker steps up on my lawn and the drunk driver runs up on my lawn and runs over the said walking individual , then NO , it has nothing to do with me , i'm not responsible for actions taken other than my own responsibility to help that individual that was hurt FIRST ! Second is if possible get the tag# of car if they try to leave the scene of the accident . If person is still living it is my responsibility to help that individual all i can until medica assistance arrives and takes over . That is what i learned in CPA training .

We may not like all choices or decisions but you have a choice to fix it or make it worse , your choice .