Golfer Tiger Woods Sued Over Drunk Driving Fatality Linked To His Bar

The public often makes the mistake of believing that gifted athletes, singers, comedians and other entertainers are also paragons of virtue and wisdom. Quite the opposite is often true - many of their talents were recognized and nurtured early in life - with coaches, parents and teachers focusing on those talents and giving them a pass on developing other life skills like moral character.
 
Last edited:
My thing with this is the allegedly destroyed evidence. If this drunk driver was visibly drunk then yes he should be sued. If there was nothing obvious I'm sorry but people are still responsible for their behavior. The suit says the bar should've know he was a drunk period. So does any bar have a responsibility to not serve a 'known' drunk period. Should a bar assume someone is driving?

Woods status will allow him lawyers, money and pr that will get rid him of the suit one way or another.

Also a sidenote. Many states are starting to track the last drink bar when a dui is involved. I wonder if the police pursued this or did the parents & lawyers.
 

StarSong said:
The public often makes the mistake of believing that gifted athletes, singers, comedians and other entertainers are also paragons of virtue and wisdom. Quite the opposite is often true - many of their talents were recognized and nurtured early in life, with coaches, parents and teachers focusing giving them a pass on developing other life skills like moral character.
Click to expand...

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Tiger or his wife probably were not tending bar that night, but being the owners, they have the responsibility of making sure that their employees are well trained enough to be able to recognize when a patron has had too much. Because they have the responsibility, they also have the liability. I am sure that Mr. Woods is well insured, so the dollar amount of any settlement will be of little consequence to him.

As for athletes, etc. being given special treatment because they have talents above others is and has been a problem for many rising stars. Some have even taken it above and beyond to the point where their lack of discipline and guidance early in life has cost them their life. For example; the one child star that was raised by dysfunctional parents was Macaulay Culkin. The other one was Corey Haim. I thought for sure these two, along with the two young men in the movie, “Stand By Me” were really good actors for their age. IMO, the exception to this rule would be Ron Howard, who I believe everyone knew he was going to do well as he advanced in the business. Andy Griffith once said that “Ron” had wonderful parents.

BTW, I don’t know why, but I thought that Tiger had remarried. Also, I believe that he just finished his obligation to his $100 million contract with Nike. It has been reported by Forbes that he has mad $1.6 Billion since he turned pro. I think some would feel invincible if they had that much money.
 
One would figure people of Woods status and wealth would go out of there way to avoid lawsuits and negative pr. That might have been the motivator of staff to 'destroy' the tapes to keep their jobs and status living vicarious off a Woods success and wealth.

Don't forget a 24 year old drunk got behind the wheel of his Corvette and crashed the car, not Woods or his staff. There's some entitlement with that driver as well. If nothing else one should'n't be jeopardizing an expensive sports car let alone other people.
 
How do you know how intoxicated someone is? I'm a cheap drunk- a couple of beers and I'm singing. Yet I know some alcoholics, who can pack it away and not be obviously smashed. I don't think the fact that Woods owns the bar has anything to do with a supposed drunk getting into an accident.
 
In Canada or at least in Ontario, we have what is called Smart Serve.

The bartender passes a course and must observe his customers and refuse to serve after the stated rules.

Number one. No more than two drinks within an hour.
 
fuzzybuddy said:
How do you know how intoxicated someone is? I'm a cheap drunk- a couple of beers and I'm singing. Yet I know some alcoholics, who can pack it away and not be obviously smashed. I don't think the fact that Woods owns the bar has anything to do with a supposed drunk getting into an accident.
Click to expand...

Agree. I have never agreed with suing a bartender (or a bar for that matter) when a drunk is involved in an accident. If it's a busy place, how on earth are they supposed to keep up with how much someone is drinking? Everyone just wants to SUE nowadays.
 
C'est Moi said:
Agree. I have never agreed with suing a bartender (or a bar for that matter) when a drunk is involved in an accident. If it's a busy place, how on earth are they supposed to keep up with how much someone is drinking? Everyone just wants to SUE nowadays.
Click to expand...

Besides which, how could they know if he was drinking secretly, in addition to whatever he was served?

BTW, I DO question the wisdom of having someone with a known alcohol problem as a bartender.

I also think the drunk driver is responsible for making the choice to get in his car and drive drunk. Nowdays, everything bad that happens is someone else's responsibility.

In this state courts have struggled with the "last drink" thing -- i.e. Joe walks in off the street already half wasted, but doesn't look it, and has one drink in a bar. Is that last bar responsible?

I personally feel that no one is really responsible but the drunk himself, but I know it doesn't work like that in our current system. I sure wouldn't want to own a bar nowdays. The only way a barkeeper can know exactly how drunk anybody is is to breathalyze everybody before they come in and before they are allowed to leave. Anything else is a crapshoot.
 
C'mon folks - -get in the real world. There's drunks staggering out of bars in your neighborhood and mine - -and everywhere else in the country. To get to the bar owner you have to pass through the bartender, server (if there was one) and the guy's companions while he was drinking (if there were any). He (the bar owner) may be a scumbag or a regular business man but, please, trained bar tenders. If this was the answer, and was actually practiced , drunk or impaired driving would almost disappear from our highways.
 
WhatInThe said:
My thing with this is the allegedly destroyed evidence. If this drunk driver was visibly drunk then yes he should be sued. If there was nothing obvious I'm sorry but people are still responsible for their behavior......
Click to expand...

Don't be 'sorry'. We live in a society where it's always someone else's fault.It's downright immoral to allow bars, or their employees, to be sued because someone comes in on their own, gets drunk as a skunk, and then injures or kills someone else. Everyone is always a 'victim' in the U.S.
 
Butterfly said:
Besides which, how could they know if he was drinking secretly, in addition to whatever he was served?

BTW, I DO question the wisdom of having someone with a known alcohol problem as a bartender.

I also think the drunk driver is responsible for making the choice to get in his car and drive drunk. Nowdays, everything bad that happens is someone else's responsibility.

In this state courts have struggled with the "last drink" thing -- i.e. Joe walks in off the street already half wasted, but doesn't look it, and has one drink in a bar. Is that last bar responsible?

I personally feel that no one is really responsible but the drunk himself, but I know it doesn't work like that in our current system. I sure wouldn't want to own a bar nowdays. The only way a barkeeper can know exactly how drunk anybody is is to breathalyze everybody before they come in and before they are allowed to leave. Anything else is a crapshoot.
Click to expand...

I too agree the drinker themselves is responsible. If they have enough brain power to think 'hmmm I'll drive down to the bar for a few' they have enough for I'd better not drive. In this day and age the information is out there. Even if by osmosis one should realize they shouldn't drink and drive; not just legally but physically.

Speaking of 'the last drink' read in the past Massachusetts the last drink is frequently at a sports venue. I it was a bar near Gillette Stadium home of the NFL Patriots.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/busines...oui-arrests/6pJV2qmcYExUz4SLEdPjoI/story.html

Ironic that this guy's last drink was at a high profile sports figure's bar.
 
C'est Moi said:
Agree. I have never agreed with suing a bartender (or a bar for that matter) when a drunk is involved in an accident. If it's a busy place, how on earth are they supposed to keep up with how much someone is drinking? Everyone just wants to SUE nowadays.
Click to expand...

I agree. The kid is dead because of his own irresponsible actions. And IMO his parents are just looking for a big payday because they know Tiger Woods has deep pockets.

And that goes double, no make it triple for their bottom fishing lawyers.

Q:What do you call 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?
A: A good start.

Q: What's the difference between a mosquito and a lawyer?
A: One is a blood-sucking parasite, the other is an insect.

Q: What does a lawyer get when you give him ******?
A: Taller.

Q: Why did New Jersey get all the toxic waste and California all the lawyers?
A: New Jersey got to pick first.

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a bucket of shit?
A : The bucket.

99% of all lawyers make the other 1% look bad.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top