« The Dismal Color of Education | Home | Fraud Alert!! »
Accountability Is a Bitch, Ain’t It?
By Matt Margolis | July 29, 2003
I have no real issues with drinking while underage. However, when I couldn’t legally buy alcohol, I didn’t try. If i wanted some, I had other means of obtaining it. I never put myself in a position to get caught and find myself suffering the legal consequences. I never put any establishment in a position where they’d be considered liable for illegal actions I could have taken.
But that’s just me… Other people, it seems don’t want to take responsibility for anything.
When Kate, a 19-year-old University of Notre Dame freshman, went out with friends for a night of drinking at a local bar called The Boat Club last January, she had no idea what was in store for her.
Shortly after midnight on Jan. 24, officers from the Indiana State Excise Police, the Indiana State Police and the local South Bend, Ind., police surrounded the two-story nightspot in a surprise raid aimed at cracking down on underage drinking.
Kate and 212 other underage drinkers were busted in the sting, and were ordered to appear in court.
Happens to everyone at one point right? At least, everyone that takes the chance of going to a bar while underage.
The bar was given the option of having its liquor license revoked or paying a $5,000 fine and selling its liquor permit to a new owner.
I have always been against bars being held responsible for underage drinkers at their bar when they are using fake ID. Doesn’t seem right at all. They do their part by asking for ID, and it’s getting tougher to distinguish fakes from real ones… What can they do????
entered a pretrial diversion program, paid a $220 fine and agreed to a one-year probation. Notre Dame also “sentenced” her to do 40 hours of community service.
At that point, Kate thought her brush with the law was over.
Then things went from bad to worse for Kate, who asked that her last name not be used. In mid-April, a notice of hearing was pushed under the door of her dorm room: The Boat Club was suing her and others nabbed in the raid for $3,000 a piece.
Good for them! It’s about time they stand up to fraudulent patrons. Seriously. They pay lots of money for insurance and all that, and in the end, they still can’t prevent people from using fake IDs, getting into their establishments, and drinking. It’s a huge problem.
“I was shocked and surprised — sort of in disbelief — I didn’t think they could do this, I didn’t think it was legal,” Kate said.
I didn’t think purchasing alcohol while being underage was legal…oh wait… it’s not.
Surprisingly, it can be legal. Stories like Kate’s are increasingly common, as bars caught serving underage patrons are turning the tables on their busted clientele, suing for damages they incur from fines and loss or suspension of liquor licenses.
Hey, why not… I’m all for this… You ruin a person’s business, you livelihood. They should be able to fight back.
Bar owners like Mike McNeff, who exclusively owns The Boat Club’s parent company, The Millennium Club, can sue their underage patrons for misrepresentation — a type of civil fraud — if they have reasonable grounds to rely on their claims that they are of legal age.
I think this is absolutely fantastic idea. It’s gotten to the point where I’ve heard of bars being responsible if someone gets in an accident driving home after drinking in their establishment… I’m tired of the criminal not being liable for their actions… It’s time to crack down on them!
John Korpita, owner of the Amherst Brewing Company in Amherst, Mass., successfully sued an underage patron for $3,713 in 1998. Korpita sued a University of Massachusetts senior after she used two fake IDs to enter his popular brewpub.
If I was the owner of a bar or pub, I’d do the same thing.
When undercover state alcohol investigators discovered the underage student, Korpita was told that his liquor license could be suspended for a period of three days or he could pay a $2,500 fine. Korpita opted to pay the fine, but filed a civil complaint against the student to recoup the loss.
Korpita said that liquor laws, which vary from state to state but tend to be similar, unfairly place a burden on alcohol retailers who are legitimately trying to prevent underage drinking. With high-tech fake ID production techniques that can make a bogus ID almost undistinguishable from a valid one, underage drinkers need to be held accountable, Korpita said.
As far as I’m concerned, anyone who uses a fake ID to get into a bar is committing fraud, and it is absolutely appropriate for bar owners to hold them accountable. They have a lot to lose in these cases. The better fake IDs get, the less likely it is that a bar is going to be able distinguish between a fake one and real one. As long a bar does what it’s supposed to do, then they shouldn’t be held liable for underage drinkers who make it in with a good fake ID. And, when and if a bar is forced to incur fines and such, what’s wrong with them saying “Hey, I did all I could to prevent this from happening, why am I the one who has to pay?”
“The fines are really horrendous and can even put a place out of business,” Korpita said. “If you’re doing the best you can, they should have some sort of consideration that you’re just not blatantly letting people in underage.”
Kate from this story got a year probation, some hours of community service, and a $220 dollar fine, while a bar risks going out of business for something it couldn’t prevent. Does that sound fair? Who committed fraud? Who committed the crime?
But Joanne Stella, a lawyer retained by the University of New Hampshire’s student government, said alcohol retailers are shirking their legal and ethical responsibilities when they try to recoup damages from busted underage customers.
Stella defended three underage students who were sued by a Durham, N.H., grocery store for damages after the students used fake IDs to purchase alcohol in two separate cases in 1998 and 2001.
If an alcohol retailer checks IDs, and the IDs are fake, how are they trying to “shirk their responsibilities?” They’ve done their part! Why is it lawyers try to excuse the illegal acts of their clients???
“I think people that are selling liquor feel frustrated that they should have to do what the law requires you to do to sell alcohol,” Stella said. “If you are going to make money off a dangerous product, you have to accept the responsibilities that go along with that. This isn’t selling milk and cookies.”
Translation: “People who sell liquor are at fault for selling something that underage people aren’t legally allowed to purchase… it just drives them to buy it illegally.”
What a typical lawyer.
Stella said that alcohol retailers feel entitled to damages because when underage drinkers are busted, the establishment that sold liquor to them faces fines, loss or suspension of liquor license. The establishment owners and bartenders can even be arrested on the spot themselves. But Stella said that the onus should still be on the retailers to prevent underage drinkers from buying alcohol.
So checking IDs is not enough??? What about underage drinkers preventing themselves from purchasing alcohol illegally? What ever happened to personal accountability in this country?
“In the three cases that ended up in a lawsuit, if they had asked for a second form of ID, none of these kids would have been able to buy alcohol,” Stella said. “The bars and grocery stores and restaurants don’t want to do that — they make tons of money off of underage drinkers.”
What form of a second ID? College IDs don’t always have YOB on them. People don’t normally carry passports. If requesting two IDs was considered minimum adequate preventative action then that would be the law. Never have I ever been asked to show two forms of ID in any type of establishment – be it a liquor store, restaurant, bar, pub, or supermarket. It just never happens. Why is that? Because that’s not the requirement. If it were, then everyone would be doing it.
If this PMSing lawyer wants establishments to require two forms of ID, then she should be trying to have the law change to require all establishments to do so. She can’t just say suddenly that one ID isn’t enough and place blame on the establishment.
Stella successfully defended the 1998 case involving two students and settled the 2001 case out of court. But the legal precedent set by successful lawsuits like Korpita’s don’t bode well for new cases.
Attorney Ed Sullivan, who is defending 42 of the students in the complaint by The Millennium Club, said that liquor laws need to be tough on alcohol retailers so that they don’t encourage them to use clientele accountability as a way to flout the law.
I love this. It’s never the fault of the kids who committed the crime. Never!
“By shifting that financial burden, it sets up an incentive for the bar owner to accept unreasonable IDs, let underage students in, make money off them drinking and then, if they are busted and fined, try to recoup damages,” Sullivan said.
That’s a fair argument. However, I doubt that bars are going to willingly put themselves in a position to have bad publicity. The fact remains that underage drinking is a huge problem in this country. Drunken driving is a problem in this country. If allowing bartenders to get damages from underage patrons misrepresenting themselves sends a message to underage people to not take the chance won’t that in effect curb underage drinking and driving? Shouldn’t people be jumping all over this as a good thing? Where’s MADD and SADD, and DARE and all those organizations? Shouldn’t they be speaking out and talking about how good an idea this is?
Kate said that she just wants to get the trial over with, but is miffed that she’s being charged.
“I feel like I made my mistake and I paid for it,” she said. “I did my hours of service, I learned my lesson. And just because they were negligent, I don’t think I should have to pay.”
Typical dumb teenager. She goes right back and blames the establishment. It’s not her fault. They were negligent????? They were negligent???? She’s the one who committed fraud! She’s the one who committed a crime! She’s the one who got caught! She’s the one who caused the establishment have its liquor license revoked or pay a $5,000 fine and selling its liquor permit to a new owner. The fraudulant and illegal actions she and others made put that establishment in that position. Yet the establishment is to blame???
She hasn’t learned her lesson… She’s whining about being caught. She’s pissed that if she tries to do it again she’ll likely have to pay even more fines. That’s her problem. Whiney little bitch wants to go bars and drink and can’t wait until she’s 21. Cry me a river. Pay up little girl - take responsibility for you actions and quit your bitching.
Topics: Thoughts |
Related Posts:
July 29th, 2003 at 11:20 pm
She sounds like a whiny spoiled brat. Have met many like her in my life.
However, I think the drinking age should be lowered.
July 30th, 2003 at 12:26 am
Where’s her Daddy to bail her out now???
July 30th, 2003 at 12:36 am
Accountability?? Bah!
I agree 100% with MattMargolis.com: The Blog :: Accountability Is a Bitch, Ain’t It? It’s a different situation if a…
July 30th, 2003 at 6:38 am
While I agree with your comments about accountability while the law is on the books, I do not agree with the rationale behind this law. In my experience, restrictiveness of liquor laws correlates positively with drinking problems in the culture. I grew up in Italy - no drinking laws to speak of, not much of a drinking culture, no real drinking problem - and am currently in the UK - highly restrictive drinking laws, massive drinking culture, huge drinking problems. I cannot speak directly about the US as I have not yet made it over there, but from what I read the situation seems to be similar to that in the UK, aside from variations between states.
Any comments?
July 30th, 2003 at 8:16 am
I think while you bring up a decent point, I don’t feel that it is the actual restrictions which cause such behavior. If that were the case, there would not be alcohol problems amongst those of legal age in the United States, or other countries with similiar restrictions.
I believe it is the differences in the cultures that is the real issue. I believe it has to do with the society in general, not the laws. People don’t committ homicide solely because the law restricts it. Simply doing away with alcohol restrictions is not going to put an end to alcoholism or drunk driving. It’s an issue of culture. and society, not laws and restrictions.
July 30th, 2003 at 8:53 am
As a note, there seems to be no evidence presented above that the bar in question was using adequate measures to keep out underage drinkers. Remember:
That means that of the 213 partrons who were admitted inappropriatly, 195 did NOT get cited for having a fake-ID.
Thus, this bar deserves everything it’s getting for letting those 195 people in.
Some other choice quotes:
Almost EVERYONE inside the bar was underage. Yes, they are CLEARLY using adequate efforts to keep underage drinkers out.
Pshaw. The blame lies squarley on the bar owner for operating a bar directly targeted at underage drinkers and for taking no steps at all to keep them out.
July 30th, 2003 at 9:56 am
In response to “Truth in Media”, the issue with respect to those who did use false IDs is not that the bar let in others without looking at their IDs. It’s whether they should be blaming the bar for being fooled by their false IDs or taking full responsibility for their own actions. Now if the fine was incurred essentially because the bar did not check IDs at all, that would be another story. I’m sure that will come out if the suits against the underage drinkers go to trial. But anyone with half a brain these days who uses a false ID knows that if he gets busted, the bar will be in trouble as well. It’s not like some poor teen was trying to obey the law and a bartender pulled him off the street into the bar by the scruff of his neck and forced a drink on him.
July 30th, 2003 at 1:08 pm
The thing that amazed me was the sheer number of underage drinkers caught: 212. Add to that the fact that the cops could easily spot the phoney IDs (yeah I know, it’s their job to do that) while it’s the bar’s position to accept anything that passes at first glance. I’d say the bar was enjoying a brisk trade in serving underaged drinkers and fell back on the excuse that they did their *best*, which just wasn’t good enough and now want to recoup some big bucks. Did I read it correctly that the bar is suing *each* of the kids for $3000? That’s $636,000 all told. Not bad for being the injured party.
John
July 30th, 2003 at 2:32 pm
Being a cheese eating, morally corrupt baby-eating, ACLU card carrying, democrat voting liberal communist, I never imagined deviating from my masters, the vast liberal hegemony, least of all to agree with a conservative. But I do. In principle. Underage drinkers should be completely accountable for their own actions, and I’m glad this girl’s getting her comeuppance. In this case, though, it seems both parties are as bad as the other - while the girl should stop whining about being caught, it seems the bar were quite happy to take the underage drinkers’ money. If that is the case, make an example of them.
While as a European I find the US’ drinking laws to be excessive, I do understand that they are perhaps neccessary in a culture which places so much value in driving at such a young age (though the legal age for learning to drive in England is 17, few young people own a car until they’re at least 21 because of astronomical insurance cots).
I think, though, that a sensible age to be able to legally buy alcohol is 18. At the very least, this would enable colleges to teach their incoming morons to drink sensibly rather than binge-drinking without being vilified for encouraging underage drinking and/or corrupting the moral fibre of the United States of America and/or being communists.
July 30th, 2003 at 3:51 pm
I strongly believe that they underage patrons of any bar who use fake IDs should be held accountable, and not the establishment itself.
If this bar is determined to have let in underage people without checking their IDs, that’s a different story. As long as IDs are checked at the door, then there is little more that can be done to prevent underage drinking. If you want to ask a bar to require two IDs, then that ought to be mandated by law. However, requiring two IDs will only prompt people to obtain more than one type of fake ID.
July 31st, 2003 at 12:08 pm
There’s going to be underage drinking as long as there is a law prohibiting it. If you hold the underagers more accountable for their actions, I honestly believe you can succeed in reducing it. I don’t know how stiff the penalties are in other states are but if you get busted in Wisconsin you can get your driver’s license suspended on your first citation and with second they get stiffer. I have a cousin who can’t get his license back until the age of 25. I think he was busted around 5-6 times though. Some people just don’t learn their lesson, I bet that Kate girl from the story was out the next weekend at a bar down the road.
July 31st, 2003 at 1:59 pm
What about the other 212e patrons, of which only 17 had fake IDs?
I guess it’s important to protect the bar - ignoring, of course, the fact that the vast majority of it’s patrons were underage. As long as there’s even a hint that there was an individual at fault as opposed to a corporation, let’s blame the individual.
You’re all protecting an estiblishment that made it’s profits by breaking the law. Bravo.
July 31st, 2003 at 3:50 pm
Could it be possible that instead of getting an underage and fake ID fine, the other 212 people opted not to show the police their fakes? If I had a fake ID and everyone around me was getting busted with fakes I wouldn’t show it; I’d take one fine over two. 212 is a high number for to assume that though.
July 31st, 2003 at 8:19 pm
Haven’t read all the comments yet so I don’t know if what I’m about to say has been covered.
I’m on both sides of this: one side as the bartender and one side as the consumer.
I agree that the nitwits who try to come in under false pretenses, rather, criminally, should be held accountable for the bar’s fines. They knew damn good and well what they were doing when they got their fake ID and they knew damn good and well that it was illegal. Yet, they thought it was funny and continued. Having worked at a bar, I can assure you, this risk is NOT funny. Some people are so good at getting fake ID’s that they fool the DMV into giving them a REAL ID with another person’s name on it and DOB. I had a roommate who did this. There is absolutely NO way in hell the doorman is going to know it’s not real because to the DMV, it IS real! Other forms of fake ID are easier to spot and the bar I worked at had the BEST doorman. This doorman took his sweet time, checking and scrutinizing all IDs, had a book on ID fraud he studied and kept at the door with him should he need to refer to it. THAT is what makes a good doorman. All doormen, (or doorpeople, whatever) should take their job this seriously.
Now, on to my consumer side. Although I’m in my 30’s I still get carded for smokes and drinks. After awhile, I decided to test the person who was checking my ID because after I went through all the trouble of finding the thing in my pockets, they would just glance at it. I was an MP before and I know, you can’t just glance at something and get all the information. So I started asking, “So, when was I born?” I have yet to have one person know this answer even though they JUST checked my ID. So, in a sense, the institutions DO have some obligations here–if you ask for an ID, you damn well better know the date of birth as well as glance at the photo.
In the end though, I agree that lushes like Kate deserve every last thing they get.
Oh, and that whole thing about bars being held accountable for people who get drunk and drive home and cause accidents…that’s been around for some time. That’s not new. That’s why bartenders are cracking down and saying, “NO more” to patrons who keep coming up to the bar for more. I’ve done it and will continue to do so.
July 31st, 2003 at 10:50 pm
As a former doorman (bouncer), If the place had 212 under age kids, out of the “200-300″ in the place, that means that they were not even checking Id’s with any sort of intent.
Places which try to spot fakes have very few under age, because kids don’t go to places where only a first class ID will work; they are afraid of getting busted, and losing the ID they spent good money for.
The first place I worked at “cool hands cafe” at seven corners, VA. had a bounty for fakes. If I caught a fake ID, and turned it into the bar, the management would give me $20. It was an excellent incentive, and the thought of being sued or arrested for taking a fake was a good incentive to be sure, and not capricious. The management would then take all these fake ID’s and hand them over to the VA Alcoholic Beverage Control. The bar got a good name for being serious about under age drinking with the authorities, I got my twenty bucks, and the ABC had evidence to prosecute false ID providers.
I think it was an excellent system, and I advocate it strongly.
As for this case: let the 17(or however many) w/ fake ID’s be sued. 50 grand won’t be enough to save the bar, People will be more cautious about breaking the law, and using fakes, and everyone wins.
August 1st, 2003 at 8:19 am
What damage did the 17 people who had fake IDs cause the bar? Even if they didn’t get in, the place would still be losing its licence due to the 212eople it let in without fake-ids.
No, they are lucky they get to sell their licence, instead of just having it revoked. Good ridence to corporate criminals.
August 1st, 2003 at 10:38 am
Why should only groups be held accountable, and not individuals, truthinmedia?
Why should we go after “corporate criminals”, and give common street hooligans a pass?
August 1st, 2003 at 12:00 pm
Don’t get me wrong - those 17 people should be punished. Hell, the 212 people should be punished as well.
And the bar? The bar should be punished. They made their money by breaking the law. They are lucky they get to sell their liquor licence and recoup their investment. If I were in charge, and a bar had 2/3s, at best, of their patrons operating illegally? Forefiture.
August 1st, 2003 at 12:18 pm
Why should we go after “corporate criminals”, and give common street hooligans a pass?
Yeah those Corporate Criminals have it so bad, like Martha Stewart… Oh wait Kenny Boy and the rest of the Enron crooks are still free.
August 1st, 2003 at 3:25 pm
Shut up and leave my thread, you ignorant kid. I’m doing just find without you spouting ignorant horseshit all over the place. Go back to DU.
August 1st, 2003 at 4:16 pm
Media- I agree on both of those last two posts you made in this thread.
August 1st, 2003 at 5:32 pm
The issue about the underage patrons who were never carded is a separate matter. However, regarding those who knowingly deceived the establishment by using fake IDs - I have no problem with them being punished for their actions in the manner taken in the article I originally quoted.
Media, please keep your tone down… And by the way, this is my thread, not yours.
August 20th, 2003 at 3:16 am
I just graduated from Notre Dame and am familiar with the bar. The bar knew exactly what it was doing. It decided to make money by letting in all the underage drinkers. Everyone there knew that the people there were underage. It was a well known fact around South Bend. Yes, the students who used fake IDs were punished. The bar acted illegally as well as the students and they were punished as well. If the government thought that the students were completely to blame, the laws would be different and the bar would not have any penalties. The problem is that the bar does not feel that they should be accountable for their own actions.
As I have heard, the suits are just about to go to trial. A large number of the students banded together with one attorney and are having an attorney handle all the suits at once, where he will most likely ask for (and receive) a dismissal on the grounds of lack of evidence. Just watch and wait. The bar knew what they were doing, and they got caught. They are the ones that should be criticized for not taking responsibility for their own actions - not the underage patrons.
August 20th, 2003 at 3:20 am
Oh, and YES, the bar is more than willing to take bad publicity. The bar is a white-trash bar and so are the people who work there, as well as the owner. I hope they all lose their trailers over this. And if you take offense to my use of the term “white trash,” then I take offense at your use of the word “bitch” when referring to “Kate.”
March 11th, 2004 at 11:59 am
“I strongly believe that they underage patrons of any bar who use fake IDs should be held accountable, and not the establishment itself.”
Comment by Matt Margolis
———————————————————————
MAtt if this law was passed then kids could show any kind of I.D. to the bouncer and get in. If the bouncer had no responsiblilty if someone showed an I.D. he would let everyone one in and say “Hey, they showed an I.D” meanwhile it looked nothing like the person.
As much as I hate to say it it’s a neccessary evil
March 11th, 2004 at 12:19 pm
The technology to create realistic fake IDs gets better all the time… There really needs to be a way to make IDs that either can’t be faked - like a card that needs to be swiped to be validated as legit..
the club should not be liable when it wasn’t knowingly or intentionally committing a crime, and to the best of their ability ensured all people inside were legal.
February 14th, 2005 at 6:34 pm
I believe the main issue left out of all of this is the fact that every single person that walked through the door that night(as for every night for the 3 previous years) had to sign an affadavit stating that the i.d. they were showing was true and valid. not to mention they had 8 door people covering 4 doors and they had 3 i.d. scanning machines and an outside security officer standing outside to deter minors along with ultraviolet lights and video cameras right on the doormen at each door.wow!!! bet ya didn’t know that. kinda changes everything a bit don’t it. I would know because I’m the owner of the club. I did win the appeals hearing and have already had my first case in court. I didn’t do it for $$$$, I did it for other bar owners.In the end I’ll end up about $50,000.00 down,and yes ,I did lose my bar.