Barmen accused of gross negligence of man who died of acute alcohol poisioning. What do you think?

[PureBloodMuggle]

Not sure if this case would have got any coverage of Britain as is occurring in Rep of Ireland at the moment. (It's possible though as the man who died is British).

A man who had been drinking Guinness for more than three hours before a shot of vodka was put into his glass, which he drank in one go. Then two shots where put into another pint, which were also drank.

It seems that then a competition went on where the deceased man said he could down ten spirits in a pint glass before his colleagues could down their pints.

The barman filled it up and asked the manager if of the OK for the purpose of serving it. The manager did give the OK and the drink was drunk in one go.

A witness says that about 10 mins later the deceased man slumped to the floor. The barmen tried to take him to his room and say he was smiling at this time. However it must have been a difficult job to take him to his room so the left him in a conference room on the first floor, lying in the recovery position.

They checked on him before they went to bed and he was snoring. At 6 that morning the night porter found him with vomit on his lips and without a pulse.

The barmen deny manslaughter.

I'm can't think what the verdict might be. I do think that a person who is doing the drinking does have responsibility of themselves but I also do remember something for years ago when I worked in a bar that there was also some responsibility on the bar staff about how much alcohol they served a person, which at the time of my working in a bar I thought in some ways was unfair (mostly in the case that if the drinker was discovered at the end of the night to be intending to drive) but giving a person large amount of spirits knowing they intend to drinking it in one go is irresponsible.

I think the man was an idiot who drank himself to death.

The barman could have refused to serve him, but to accuse him of manslaughter is ridiculous - I'm sure he feels bad enough about what happened as it is.

It is unlawful to serve a drunk, so the barman has responsibility. The drinker also has a responsibility too and has contributed to his own demise.

Gosh, how wreckles to behave that way.

In my barmaid days we were forbidden to serve more than a double shot and couldn't even serve snakebite for fear of legal repercussions...

I think both were equally irresponsible to be honest. Then again I never did understand drinking games.

Not too sure about the manslaughter bit though.

I think that it is quite difficult.

on one hand, the individual is responsible for his own choices and behaviour, so if you look at it like that, he made that choice and it, sadly, killed him.

on the other hand, it is well known that excessive consumption of alcohol causes imparement of judgement - it's one of the reasons you can't drive! you also do stupid things when drunk because of the physical effect of alcohol on the brain. And someone who serves alcohol for a living should know that.

If someone is incapable of making good judgements, especially re their safety, because of the physical effect alcohol has had on their brain, then does the person supplying the alcohol have a duty of care?

However, nobody held that man and poured booze down his throat. He decided to do it.

But he decided to do it because he was drunk. And being drunk means you make stupid choices.

round and round and round we go.

I don't think it's manslaughter. but I do think that it raises the question of duty of care.

It's

"manslaughter by gross negligence: negligence to a very high degree involving the likelihood of substantial risk of injury to the victim"

I had been thinking that they didn't give him the drink intending on him dying. But that is what manslaughter is, isn't it? Killing without the intention to?

Here's a link to another report I've just read (my first post come from a newspaper report) on RTE;

www.rte.ie/news/2011/0504/parishg.html

I don't know.

I thought murder was intentional beforehand whereas manslaughter was a spur of the moment thing. more emotional whereas murder was a cold decision. I thought unlawful killing was the next one down, where someone dies and you are responsible but you didn't actually kill them, iwsim.

But I am no legal bod.

It wasn't just the giving him the drink, which I would say the deceased must bear some responsibility for, but I can't believe they left a person so drunk they had collapsed, on their own all night on a conference room floor. I wouldn't like to have to defend that in court. Surely in those circumstances most people would have called an ambulance?

I'm waiting for the transcripts to come out. I've only seen very brief reports and due to the nature of the case and how this may affect an integral part of Irish culture in the future (i.e. the pub and boozing) I am weary of being influenced by how the media will be reporting this.
I think they have tried to contextualise it as when will we blame bar-men for serving too many drinks etc.
However I think this part
"The barmen tried to take him to his room and say he was smiling at this time. However it must have been a difficult job to take him to his room so the left him in a conference room on the first floor, lying in the recovery position."

May be one of the material points upon which the case will hinge. Because it could well be argued that it is at this point which they have assumed responsibility.In law it is a general principle that you can't be held responsible in negligence for an omission. So if I'm walking by a canal and there is a child drowning and it is within my power to save them without endangering myself but choose not to I should not, in theory at least, be accountable in law for that childs death due to my omitting to help. This can be broken in a number of ways where by the person willl have a duty of care (e.g. parental relationship etc.)
One of the ways it can also be broken is when a person assumes responsibility for someone so if I had taken that child to the canal/lake to go swimming I may have a duty to act,in this case it could be argued that by taking the man and attempting to lay him in the recovery position they have assumed responsibility for his safety.

Not sure of the law in Rep. Of Ireland, but here it is not "socially responsible" to mix drinks like that. It's not illegal, but the onus is on bar staff to ensure that all drinking us socially responsible. This means that you can't mix loads of spirits like that, and if someone orders, say, 15 shots of vodka and you know they are going to neck them at once, you are responsible.
It is illegal to serve a drunk, punishable by an on the spot fine, a possible £5000 fine for the licensee and losing your job.

Could have changed in the past year though.

Here in England, he would have to bear some of the responsibility. Not sure what he would be charged with though.

"I thought murder was intentional beforehand whereas manslaughter was a spur of the moment thing."

No murder is an act done with the intent to cause serious harm which results in the death of another.
Manslaughter is an act which is done to cause some harm or is reckless to the fact that some harm may be caused and results in the death of another.

as for the circular argument that you posed earlier:
"However, nobody held that man and poured booze down his throat. He decided to do it.

But he decided to do it because he was drunk. And being drunk means you make stupid choices.

round and round and round we go. "

I'd place the liability for any criminal squarelt squarely with the man drinking. I could see an argument for perhaps imposing civil liabilities on the premises or bar-man if he was acting ultra vires, in this case he got permission from the manager so don't see how the bar-man could be, but not criminal.

Yes you make poor decisions when drunk, but I'd draw an analogy with the laws approach to crimes of specific intent involving an accused who was intoxicated at the time. If you are intoxicated you will be seen as lacking the necessary mens rea for specific intent. However if you poossess the mens rea prior and then get yourself drunk to commission the crime (often referred to as 'dutch courage' cases) then your mens rea pre-intoxication holds.
For me people who go out and knowingly get drunk, do so in the knowledge that they may make poor decisions and this does not in any way make their poor decisions any less their own.

Surely the manager is responsible for the drink situation as he OKed it?

The responsibility born by the barmen is that they should have called an ambulance.

I do think the majority of the blame lies with the deceased though.

"No murder is an act done with the intent to cause serious harm which results in the death of another.
Manslaughter is an act which is done to cause some harm or is reckless to the fact that some harm may be caused and results in the death of another."

ah. I see. Ta.

So what is the difference between manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter? and manslaughter and unlawful killing?

See, I'm not a legal bod and all my info comes from Our Great Lord Google

like this

"Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen?s peace with malice aforethought.?

"Manslaughter is a distinct crime and is not considered a lesser degree of murder. The essential distinction between the two offenses is that malice aforethought must be present for murder, whereas it must be absent for manslaughter. Manslaughter is not as serious a crime as murder. On the other hand, it is not a justifiable or excusable killing for which little or no punishment is imposed.

The main difference between voluntary or Involuntary Manslaughter is that voluntary manslaughter requires an intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm while involuntary manslaughter does not. Premeditation or deliberation, however, are elements of murder and not of manslaughter."

It's all terribly confusing. [boggle]

So that's why I thought that murder = intention to kill, manslaughter = killing in the heat of the moment. unlawful killing (involuntary manslaughter?) - action that results in the death of someone.

And yes, you are right - if you go out and get drunk, then before you neck all that beer you know that you are going to get pissed and that getting pissed may mean you make terrible choices.

I suppose it would be the same thing as some twat has a skinful while waving his car keys around, drives, kills someone and the barman is prosecuted for the death of that person on the grounds that he sold the alcohol and saw that the person was driving? Would it?

I don't know what I am talking about. Clearly.

"But he decided to do it because he was drunk. And being drunk means you make stupid choices."

Not sure if Irish law, but if he was drunk, then a barman should not serve further alcohol anyway.

On my 18th, I had 18 shots (not in quick succession but over perhaps 3 hours) of Southern Comfort (with lemonade), my drink of choice. I was perfectly fine and back in college the next morning at the usual time. I had the drinks in the college bar with a group of friends, and had clearly been drinking while under age (a "shock" to the bar staff, of course)... having started college age 16y 8m :)

Differences - (a) was not mixing drinks, and had eaten food, and (b) did not try to consume so much in such a short time. I didn't need help getting home (it was perhaps a half hour walk from central Southampton to Shirley, past the old football ground) and honestly didn't feel at all bad.

I think the responsibility lies mostly with the idiot who drank himself to death. As SoupDragon suggests, the barman may be responsible for not taking adequate care (eg calling an ambulance) but I wonder what responsibility staff have for anyone who appears to be "OK" after drinking a lot.