Supreme Court: Bars not liable for drunk drivers

Raleigh, N.C. — The state Supreme Court ruled Friday that businesses aren't bound by law to stop someone from driving drunk.

In a split decision, the court distinguished liability for bars across the state. By law, an establishment cannot knowingly serve a drunk who goes on to hurt someone, but the ruling means restaurants and bars aren't obligated to step in and prevent someone from driving drunk.

The case stems from a Durham County case in which a jury found Torero's II, a Mexican restaurant, responsible in the 1997 death of Michael Hall. William Terry drank heavily at Torero's before driving off and causing the wreck that killed Hall.

Hall's widow, Theresa Hall, sued for negligence and was awarded more than $1.2 million in 2004, but a judge set aside the verdict and award. The state Court of Appeals affirmed the judge's ruling, citing past court decisions that found forcing servers to evaluate every customer's behavior would be "unjustifiably burdensome" to business.

The high court upheld the previous rulings. Because justices split 3-3, the Court of Appeals ruling remains in place.

Some state lawmakers have considered adding liability to bar owners, but the proposal has gone nowhere in the General Assembly.

38 Comments

WRAL.com welcomes your comments on this story. All comments are moderated prior to publication based on our posting guidelines. Please review them prior to posting and if your message is not approved.

VIEW ALL 38 COMMENTS

This story is closed for comments. Comments on WRAL.com news stories are accepted and moderated between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. Monday through Friday.

Latest Comments

I agree with the Supreme Court ruling. I also feel that the driver that is legally drunk or impaired, should be charged with a felony crime. Someone dies, charge with FELONY murder. Someone is has lost limbs or paralyzed, charge attempted murder and so on. The sentence should be AUTOMATIC incarceration.

Eduardo1
March 27, 2009 11:53 a.m.

Absolutely right. Besides, if they tried to cut someone off... have you ever witnessed how violent a drunk can get when the barkeep tries to cut them off? Some drunks are silly, some happy, some sad, but some are just plain angry & violent drunks! There's no telling what they'll do with total disregard to anyone else's safety!

gordonbabe
March 27, 2009 11:46 a.m.

Well at least there's one ruling for a change that doesn't support the nanny state. When did adults stop being adults?

TheLibertine
March 27, 2009 10:14 a.m.

I hate it for the families, but if uve ever been in a crowded bar, you know the bartenders are not serving everyone face to face...sometimes someone orders several drinks for their friends, etc... Also, I had a friend who blew a .25 and he seriously held his liquor well, and you wouldnt have been able to tell he was drunk....what then?

itirksmest8
March 27, 2009 9:44 a.m.

I wonder how many of us would feel this way if this were a family member of ours. Deep down if you knew that a place of business had allowed an individual to continually drink without eating for over 4 hours, would you feel that way once you found out that had been allowed? Certainly a drunken driver should be held responsible. Thank goodness there are some responsible restuarant/bar owners out there. How many out there are aware that this same restuarant, since the crash, lost its ABC license for serving a minor(s). So, one brother just sold it to another brother who reapplied and once again, this business had its ABC license back. How many of you know that the woman who filed the suit had to sit in a vehicle waiting to be cut out with her husband's body on her laying there while he was drowning in his own blood? So laugh it up! Serve the whole house; hopefully it won't be your spouse, finance, parents or child that pays the bill. And that my friends, is one to grow on.

salouisburg
March 23, 2009 6:34 p.m.