Public weigh-in on Voss v. Tranquilino

The Asbury Park Press ran a story yesterday about the Supreme Court’s decision in Voss v. Tranquilino, which gave a green light to drunk drivers suing establishments for injuries they sustain while driving drunk (Court: Brick man can sue Tiffany's Bar for over-serving him/ Hopkins).  Here are excerpts of some of my favorite comments as of this morning:

speedkillsu

4:43 AM on June 2, 2011

Well that officially just killed that industry ...last call 9;00pm ........

 ---

tizziec@optonline.net

6:49 AM on June 2, 2011

Idiots in THIS state will start driving drunk on purpose hoping to get rich when they sue the bar after..

---

ort63

6:56 AM on June 2, 2011

Sounds like another self serving ruling by our court system. the more we are allowed to sue the more the lawyers make. when is it enough, when are we to be held accountable for our own actions. you want to save the state and the taxpayers some money? hold people responsible for their own actions and do away with these waste of money lawsuits

---

16317

7:02 AM on June 2, 2011

So give the person a huge amount of money for being stupid. I think the bar should have the right to counter sue. Why should someone lose their business for someone else being irresponsible ?

---

Overtaxed08527

7:04 AM on June 2, 2011

In Pennsylvania, the voters elect their judges, including their state Supreme Court justices. Sitting judges need to face periodic retention votes in order to keep their job. Funny thing -- you don't see too many Pennsylvania judges acting like legislators (e.g. the Abbott decisions) or otherwise reaching idiotic decisions as they did in the case mentioned in this article.

---

sancam

7:15 AM on June 2, 2011

Are you kidding me? You have one too many drinks, full well knowing it's against the law to drink and drive (you just haven't been caught in the act yet), you go out and then get in to a serious accident (good thing you didn't kill someone else) and then you're going to hold the establishment responsible? That's like saying that I can bring suit against an eating establishment for making me FAT by overfeeding me because I did not have the sense to stop eating. Talk about a litigious society? I thought the idea was to cease with the frivolous lawsuits that are costing the rest of us a fortune.

---

077734

7:15 AM on June 2, 2011

do we need to go back to prohibation [sp] because humans no longer take blame for any actions or free choices they make?

---

emtwraith

7:09 AM on June 2, 2011

You have to be kidding me..., this should be like the Son of Sam law where you can not profit from your crimes