Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Stadium Wide Alcohol Sales - Approved...

Started by twistitup, January 17, 2018, 07:40:06 am

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

KlubhouseKonnected

Quote from: GuvHog on January 18, 2018, 09:40:24 am
What I think is irrelevant. The courts have ruled that a vendor can be held liable if a person gets drunk in the vendor's business and then kills someone while driving drunk.

The courts have applied a statute. It's statutory law not an invention of precedent unless my memory is failing me earlier than expected.
If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

KlubhouseKonnected

Quote from: GuvHog on January 18, 2018, 09:43:46 am
Since Levy has a contract with the U of A, the university would be liable too.

Not as a matter of course. As a blanket statement you could hardy be more incorrect.
If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

 

twistitup

Guys, it's obviously profitable, legal, and has been done successfully...even the NCAA served it at the CWS- if it was that much of a risk, it wouldn't be common.
How you gonna win when you ain't right within?

Here I am again mixing misery and gin....

steveaustin69

Quote from: GuvHog on January 18, 2018, 10:17:53 am
Wrong. Their revenue would increase some but their Liability insurance premium would skyrocket so a lot of the extra revenue they would make would be used to pay the much higher Liability insurance premium.

You have no way of proving this.  You're a funeral director, not an actuary working for an insurance company. Did Texas announce they are stopping alcohol sales?  Most recent figure I can find is $3.1M in revenue which was a 70% increase over the previous year RicePig pointed out.  Wouldn't they stop alcohol sales if the cost outweighed the benefit?

Hawgndaaz

Quote from: GuvHog on January 18, 2018, 10:09:48 am
No, I'm quite correct. It is you who are wrong.

Get ready for it..

If the SEC allows it to be sold in general seating, UofA will immediately start selling it.

The U of A has zero problem covering the liability.

zero.

Busta_Nutt

If WVU can sell alcohol at its home games without issues, Arkansas can too. WVU fans will burn couches and start riots for the hell of it on a Wednesday afternoon at 2pm.

ricepig

Quote from: MyBoyCanaan on January 18, 2018, 10:39:01 am
Another thing people don't realize, if alcohol is sold inside the stadium, people will binge drink less outside knowing their is more of the devils juice inside to fuel their addiction.

So.....Will it be like the dry county elections, the existing liquor stores campaign against it, lol?

Busta_Nutt

Quote from: MyBoyCanaan on January 18, 2018, 10:39:01 am
Another thing people don't realize, if alcohol is sold inside the stadium, people will binge drink less outside knowing their is more of the devils juice inside to fuel their addiction.

No way...that make's too much sense for this message board.

Grizzlyfan

Quote from: GuvHog on January 18, 2018, 10:08:39 am
If they allowed Alcoholic beverages to be sold stadium wide, the U of A's liability insurance premium would skyrocket.
If the added income from alcohol sales doesn't offset the increased cost of liability insurance (and the loss of income from the sale of other beverages) they won't do it.

KlubhouseKonnected

Guv,

I actually considered posting the dram shop law and discussing its potential application to the factual scenario at hand. I also considered discussing the doctrine of respondeat superior and it's potential applicability. My guess is that factually both would be a hard nut to crack for a plaintiff here. However, I walked into the office and there is a contract issue I need to deal with before 1:00, so I propose the following:

Let us assume for this purpose any suit in tort, based on (or related to) the sale of alcohol at home games, naming the University of Arkansas as a defendant would be a suit against the state of Arkansas. Let's also assume you are a resident of Arkansas.

Now let us pretend that someone went to a game, had too much to drink and then injured you shortly thereafter. You file a lawsuit and name the University of Arkansas as a defendant.

Then let us pretend that I represent the University.  Let's also pretend that I, without researching it's application to this specific factual scenario (thereby committing malpractice), immediately file a motion to dismiss using, as my first basis for dismissal (first because I anticipate I would have multiple grounds to move for dismissal) that your suit is barred by the State of Arkansas's sovereign immunity citing the Arkansas Constitution, art. 5, section 20, which expressly forbids suits against the state by declaring "[t]he State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts."

Now you tell me how you will defeat my motion on that basis and later we can discuss all the other reasons why I expect you to be incorrect in your analysis.

I look forward to this interesting exercise.
If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

RME

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 18, 2018, 11:46:23 am
Guv,

I actually considered posting the dram shop law and discussing its potential application to the factual scenario at hand. I also considered discussing the doctrine of respondeat superior and it's potential applicability. My guess is that factually both would be a hard nut to crack for a plaintiff here. However, I walked into the office and there is a contract issue I need to deal with before 1:00, so I propose the following:

Let us assume for this purpose any suit in tort, based on (or related to) the sale of alcohol at home games, naming the University of Arkansas as a defendant would be a suit against the state of Arkansas. Let's also assume you are a resident of Arkansas.

Now let us pretend that someone went to a game, had too much to drink and then injured you shortly thereafter. You file a lawsuit and name the University of Arkansas as a defendant.

Then let us pretend that I represent the University.  Let's also pretend that I, without researching it's application to this specific factual scenario (thereby committing malpractice), immediately file a motion to dismiss using, as my first basis for dismissal (first because I anticipate I would have multiple grounds to move for dismissal) that your suit is barred by the State of Arkansas's sovereign immunity citing the Arkansas Constitution, art. 5, section 20, which expressly forbids suits against the state by declaring "[t]he State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts."

Now you tell me how you will defeat my motion on that basis and later we can discuss all the other reasons why I expect you to be incorrect in your analysis.


I look forward to this interesting exercise.

Well, this fight's over before it even started.


steveaustin69

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 18, 2018, 11:46:23 am
Guv,

I actually considered posting the dram shop law and discussing its potential application to the factual scenario at hand. I also considered discussing the doctrine of respondeat superior and it's potential applicability. My guess is that factually both would be a hard nut to crack for a plaintiff here. However, I walked into the office and there is a contract issue I need to deal with before 1:00, so I propose the following:

Let us assume for this purpose any suit in tort, based on (or related to) the sale of alcohol at home games, naming the University of Arkansas as a defendant would be a suit against the state of Arkansas. Let's also assume you are a resident of Arkansas.

Now let us pretend that someone went to a game, had too much to drink and then injured you shortly thereafter. You file a lawsuit and name the University of Arkansas as a defendant.

Then let us pretend that I represent the University.  Let's also pretend that I, without researching it's application to this specific factual scenario (thereby committing malpractice), immediately file a motion to dismiss using, as my first basis for dismissal (first because I anticipate I would have multiple grounds to move for dismissal) that your suit is barred by the State of Arkansas's sovereign immunity citing the Arkansas Constitution, art. 5, section 20, which expressly forbids suits against the state by declaring "[t]he State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts."

Now you tell me how you will defeat my motion on that basis and later we can discuss all the other reasons why I expect you to be incorrect in your analysis.

I look forward to this interesting exercise.

My dear lord. Body meet bag.

ricepig

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 18, 2018, 11:46:23 am
Guv,

I actually considered posting the dram shop law and discussing its potential application to the factual scenario at hand. I also considered discussing the doctrine of respondeat superior and it's potential applicability. My guess is that factually both would be a hard nut to crack for a plaintiff here. However, I walked into the office and there is a contract issue I need to deal with before 1:00, so I propose the following:

Let us assume for this purpose any suit in tort, based on (or related to) the sale of alcohol at home games, naming the University of Arkansas as a defendant would be a suit against the state of Arkansas. Let's also assume you are a resident of Arkansas.

Now let us pretend that someone went to a game, had too much to drink and then injured you shortly thereafter. You file a lawsuit and name the University of Arkansas as a defendant.

Then let us pretend that I represent the University.  Let's also pretend that I, without researching it's application to this specific factual scenario (thereby committing malpractice), immediately file a motion to dismiss using, as my first basis for dismissal (first because I anticipate I would have multiple grounds to move for dismissal) that your suit is barred by the State of Arkansas's sovereign immunity citing the Arkansas Constitution, art. 5, section 20, which expressly forbids suits against the state by declaring "[t]he State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts."

Now you tell me how you will defeat my motion on that basis and later we can discuss all the other reasons why I expect you to be incorrect in your analysis.

I look forward to this interesting exercise.

Guv don't care about no laws.....

 

Busta_Nutt

Quote from: GuvHog on January 18, 2018, 09:35:41 am
I don't have to prove anything. It's true that there have been businesses sued for that.

Quote from: GuvHog on January 18, 2018, 09:40:24 am
What I think is irrelevant. The courts have ruled that a vendor can be held liable if a person gets drunk in the vendor's business and then kills someone while driving drunk.

Logic, folks.

KlubhouseKonnected

If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

Inhogswetrust

Quote from: GuvHog on January 18, 2018, 10:17:53 am
Wrong. Their revenue would increase some but their Liability insurance premium would skyrocket so a lot of the extra revenue they would make would be used to pay the much higher Liability insurance premium.

That is why restaurants and large venues anywhere never serve alcohol.......................no wait nevermind.
If I'm going to cheer players and coaches in victory, I damn sure ought to be man enough to stand with them in defeat.

"Why some people are so drawn to the irrational is something that has always puzzled me" - James Randi

Inhogswetrust

Quote from: Grizzlyfan on January 18, 2018, 11:17:43 am
If the added income from alcohol sales doesn't offset the increased cost of liability insurance (and the loss of income from the sale of other beverages) they won't do it.

Sure. If you say so. The loss of income to other beverages is not a factor and even if there were any increase in liability insurance the concessionaire would absorb that. IF either are such an issue then why do you think they are already selling it in the club areas.
If I'm going to cheer players and coaches in victory, I damn sure ought to be man enough to stand with them in defeat.

"Why some people are so drawn to the irrational is something that has always puzzled me" - James Randi

LZH

Quote from: GuvHog on January 18, 2018, 09:14:29 am
You think wrong. It is a liability issue. If a fan gets drunk on alcoholic beverages sold at the stadium and then hits and kills someone while driving drunk after the game, the U of A can be held liable for the death of the person the drunk killed because they sold the drunk driver the liquor.

Read the back of your ticket...might be something there. Besides, a good attorney should be able to argue that the guy selling beer isn't medically qualified to know how impaired someone is. And how can they prove someone didn't knock out a fifth of vodka in the parking lot?

twistitup

Quote from: LZH on January 19, 2018, 06:30:03 am
And how can they prove someone didn't knock out a fifth of vodka in the parking lot?
How you gonna win when you ain't right within?

Here I am again mixing misery and gin....

KlubhouseKonnected

If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

RME

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 19, 2018, 10:13:17 am
I guess Guv is done here.

Your post directed towards him was arguably the most impressive thing I've seen on Hogville. That was incredible.

And the lack of a response from him makes it all the better.

+1

Grizzlyfan

Quote from: Inhogswetrust on January 19, 2018, 06:26:20 am
Sure. If you say so. The loss of income to other beverages is not a factor and even if there were any increase in liability insurance the concessionaire would absorb that. IF either are such an issue then why do you think they are already selling it in the club areas.
You think they will sell alcohol stadium wide if they lose money doing it?  by virtue of the liability insurance that Guv mentioned?  by the way, I don't believe they would ever lose money doing it.

Busta_Nutt


KlubhouseKonnected

Quote from: RyanMallettsEgo on January 19, 2018, 10:37:07 am
Your post directed towards him was arguably the most impressive thing I've seen on Hogville. That was incredible.

And the lack of a response from him makes it all the better.

+1

Thanks, as with anything I am sure there is some increased risk but I was really just trying to frame the discussion.
If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

 

GuvHog

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 18, 2018, 11:46:23 am
Guv,

I actually considered posting the dram shop law and discussing its potential application to the factual scenario at hand. I also considered discussing the doctrine of respondeat superior and it’s potential applicability. My guess is that factually both would be a hard nut to crack for a plaintiff here. However, I walked into the office and there is a contract issue I need to deal with before 1:00, so I propose the following:

Let us assume for this purpose any suit in tort, based on (or related to) the sale of alcohol at home games, naming the University of Arkansas as a defendant would be a suit against the state of Arkansas. Let’s also assume you are a resident of Arkansas.

Now let us pretend that someone went to a game, had too much to drink and then injured you shortly thereafter. You file a lawsuit and name the University of Arkansas as a defendant.

Then let us pretend that I represent the University.  Let’s also pretend that I, without researching it’s application to this specific factual scenario (thereby committing malpractice), immediately file a motion to dismiss using, as my first basis for dismissal (first because I anticipate I would have multiple grounds to move for dismissal) that your suit is barred by the State of Arkansas’s sovereign immunity citing the Arkansas Constitution, art. 5, section 20, which expressly forbids suits against the state by declaring “[t]he State of Arkansas shall never be made defendant in any of her courts.”

Now you tell me how you will defeat my motion on that basis and later we can discuss all the other reasons why I expect you to be incorrect in your analysis.

I look forward to this interesting exercise.

Since the U of A Athletic Department gets no tax money and the U of A, while getting tax money, is not part of the state government, your grounds for dismissal would not apply.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

steveaustin69

Quote from: GuvHog on January 19, 2018, 11:38:50 am
Since the U of A Athletic Department gets no tax money and the U of A, while getting tax money, is not part of the state government, your grounds for dismissal would not apply.

It's ok to admit defeat. I don't think you're going to win this one, or really any argument you partake in for that matter.

RME

Quote from: GuvHog on January 19, 2018, 11:38:50 am
Since the U of A Athletic Department gets no tax money and the U of A, while getting tax money, is not part of the state government, your grounds for dismissal would not apply.



Patiently waiting for Klubhouse's response like

KlubhouseKonnected

Quote from: GuvHog on January 19, 2018, 11:38:50 am
Since the U of A Athletic Department gets no tax money and the U of A, while getting tax money, is not part of the state government, your grounds for dismissal would not apply.

Interesting legal theory, I have never heard that before but anticipated something similar along those lines. What entity holds title to the stadium?

If I were evaluating the options for ways to attack this from your side I would not have picked this one as the path of least resistance btw. But I'm interested, let's be patient with each other and see see where this goes.
If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

GuvHog

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 19, 2018, 12:35:38 pm
Interesting legal theory, I have never heard that before but anticipated something similar along those lines. What entity holds title to the stadium?

If I were evaluating the options for ways to attack this from your side I would not have picked this one as the path of least resistance btw. But I’m interested, let’s be patient with each other and see see where this goes.

The University holds title to the stadium. Need I remind you that Nolan himself sued the University and the court allowed the trial to happen?? I rest my case.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

Busta_Nutt

Quote from: GuvHog on January 19, 2018, 12:43:00 pm
The University holds title to the stadium. Need I remind you that Nolan himself sued the University and the court allowed the trial to happen?? I rest my case.


KlubhouseKonnected

Quote from: GuvHog on January 19, 2018, 12:43:00 pm
The University holds title to the stadium. Need I remind you that Nolan himself sued the University and the court allowed the trial to happen?? I rest my case.

He sued Arkansas in federal court, under federal law. I could explain how state's sovereign immunity functions (and is in specific instances specifically abrogated) under the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but let's keep this focused on what you were discussing earlier, which as far as I can see has no jurisdictional basis to be filed in federal court.

FYI, the above was what I expected you to respond with immediately, that's why I took pains to specifically frame the scenario in a way where we did not have to tick off all the boxes of federal jurisdiction.

Also, as far as your earlier post about the Athletic Department not being an arm of state government, you may want to consider why the Athletic Department is subject to AFOIA before doubling down.
If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

steveaustin69

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 19, 2018, 12:56:06 pm
He sued Arkansas in federal court, under federal law. I could explain how state's sovereign immunity functions (and is in specific instances specifically abrogated) under the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but let's keep this focused on what you were discussing earlier, which as far as I can see has no jurisdictional basis to be filed in federal court.

FYI, the above was what I expected you to respond with immediately, that's why I took pains to specifically frame the scenario in a way where we did not have to tick off all the boxes of federal jurisdiction.

Also, as far as your earlier post about the Athletic Department not being an arm of state government, you may want to consider why the Athletic Department is subject to AFOIA before doubling down.

Who wants to see a dead body?

GuvHog

Quote from: KlubhouseKonnected on January 19, 2018, 12:56:06 pm
He sued Arkansas in federal court, under federal law. I could explain how state’s sovereign immunity functions (and is in specific instances specifically abrogated) under the 11th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but let’s keep this focused on what you were discussing earlier, which as far as I can see has no jurisdictional basis to be filed in federal court.

FYI, the above was what I expected you to respond with immediately, that’s why I took pains to specifically frame the scenario in a way where we did not have to tick off all the boxes of federal jurisdiction.

Also, as far as your earlier post about the Athletic Department not being an arm of state government, you may want to consider why the Athletic Department is subject to AFOIA before doubling down.

The University of Arkansas Athletic Department is subect to AFOIA because while it is separate from the University in that it get's no tax money, it is still officially part of the U of A. That does not make it part of the state Government. Making that argument in court would be a serious stretch on yuor part.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

ricepig

Quote from: GuvHog on January 19, 2018, 01:28:44 pm
The University of Arkansas Athletic Department is subect to AFOIA because while it is separate from the University in that it get's no tax money, it is still officially part of the U of A. That does not make it part of the state Government. Making that argument in court would be a serious stretch on yuor part.


Does the university receive state funds, does the Governor appoint the trustees?

GuvHog

Quote from: ricepig on January 19, 2018, 01:33:19 pm
Does the university receive state funds, does the Governor appoint the trustees?

Yes the University does receive state funds and the Governor appoints the Trustees but the U of A Athletic Department receives no tax money.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

ricepig

Quote from: GuvHog on January 19, 2018, 01:37:34 pm
Yes the University does receive state funds and the Governor appoints the Trustees but the U of A Athletic Department receives no tax money.

Which has nothing to do with this.

steveaustin69

Quote from: GuvHog on January 19, 2018, 01:28:44 pm
The University of Arkansas Athletic Department is subect to AFOIA because while it is separate from the University in that it get's no tax money, it is still officially part of the U of A. That does not make it part of the state Government. Making that argument in court would be a serious stretch on yuor part.

Dude, just stop. He already said he was prepared for this comeback.  It's amazing and somewhat odd the lengths you will go to to continue an argument.

GuvHog

Quote from: steveaustin69 on January 19, 2018, 01:40:55 pm
Dude, just stop. He already said he was prepared for this comeback. 

I know. I'm just having some fun with him.
Bleeding Razorback Red Since Birth!!!

KlubhouseKonnected

Quote from: MyBoyCanaan on January 19, 2018, 12:59:48 pm
You could be making up every word for all I know but sounds fancy enough to disprove Guv. Very cool, very swag, I like.

I'll confess that I am just shooting off the top of my head and not taking the time to research and check my work like I would professionally but I have represented governmental entities and employees in litigation at both the state and federal level. A fair bit in both forums actually. That is why I am speaking, or at least attempting to speak, confidently but not in certainties.

There are still other avenues to take in attacking my position but from a high level view I don't see any way that offering alcohol for sale in DWRRS would carry any greater liability than it does for the same sales in private sectors and in fact, as I have been indicating, I strongly suspect the liability would be much lower concerning sales at DWRRS.

However, their could be avenues of attack that I am not aware of or have not thought of, so I still find the conversation fun and interesting.

If only people would stop asking me to do real work we could really dig into this lol.
If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

KlubhouseKonnected

January 19, 2018, 03:06:59 pm #139 Last Edit: January 19, 2018, 03:18:09 pm by KlubhouseKonnected
Quote from: GuvHog on January 19, 2018, 01:28:44 pm
The University of Arkansas Athletic Department is subect to AFOIA because while it is separate from the University in that it get's no tax money, it is still officially part of the U of A. That does not make it part of the state Government. Making that argument in court would be a serious stretch on yuor part.


You know what is really interesting about your argument? It's that I can't dismiss it out of hand. While, I really think that the law won't be on your side and that there is almost no chance that sovereign immunity is lost under these facts as you present them, I also have had many conversations with other defense attornies about how the University (specifically in relation to the Athletics Department) gets away with doing things that no other state agency could. Often without clear legal explanation.

So from a purely academic standpoint your position is interesting (more so as an argument in favor of a waiver of immunity than saying they are simply do not fall under the umbrella of state government institutions).  However, for the same anecdotal reasons I find it interesting I also suspect that would not be a successful argument that they had waived sovereign immunity.

I would be interested if you found something cutting towards that because I am think I know a specific case that will cut against it. I'll try to remember to look it up later. Probably won't happen today, maybe this evening if I get bored with my freedom.
If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

twistitup

^
Thanks for your input on this subject Klubhouse
How you gonna win when you ain't right within?

Here I am again mixing misery and gin....

KlubhouseKonnected

If Auburn is dirty so is Gus. You can't have it both ways. Deal with it.

ricepig


LZH

"The room's starting to spin real fast, 'cause all of the Guv-ness..."

Tusks


So does this mean all hog fans are getting beer in the stadium ?
sometimes it's a good and some times it's a schit

ricepig


twistitup

Quote from: ricepig on January 19, 2018, 03:59:06 pm
Especially once you bill him for your time.

Maybe he's pro bono when it comes to Food & Beverage.
I'd like him on the Concessions Board of Advisors
How you gonna win when you ain't right within?

Here I am again mixing misery and gin....

Tusks

sometimes it's a good and some times it's a schit

HangTenHog

Dang! Hog hat sales are going to drop if alcohol becomes easily available at the games. Ex-students know what I mean.

Inhogswetrust

January 20, 2018, 03:44:30 pm #149 Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 05:19:25 pm by Inhogswetrust
Quote from: Grizzlyfan on January 19, 2018, 10:38:13 am
You think they will sell alcohol stadium wide if they lose money doing it?  by virtue of the liability insurance that Guv mentioned?  by the way, I don't believe they would ever lose money doing it.

Do you think they will lose money by doing alcohol sales stadium wide? IF it is so unprofitable then why is it so prevalent in EVERY stadium and arena for ALL major sports? If so it is shocking they would sell it.
If I'm going to cheer players and coaches in victory, I damn sure ought to be man enough to stand with them in defeat.

"Why some people are so drawn to the irrational is something that has always puzzled me" - James Randi