Issue of legal liability raised
by case of the Irish barmen

The question of the legal liability of the owners of bars and the servers of alcohol in cases where harm arises from the consumption of the alcohol provided to customers, came into sharp focus in Ireland when two barmen were charged with manslaughter following the death of a customer from acute alcoholic poisoning.

In the context of the alcohol trade, issues of civil liability can arise in terms of a duty of care but there is also the possibility of criminal responsibility when a licensee or member of their staff could be regarded as aiding or abetting the commission of a criminal offence such as drink driving.

Inspired by the success of tobacco litigation, many alcohol policy advocates have favoured making licensees or their servants legally liable for the harmful consequences to themselves or others of their customers’ alcohol consumption, in circumstances where the licensees can be shown to have acted neglectfully or irresponsibly. In 2004, one of Scotland’s leading licensing specialists called for ‘server (or third-party) liability’ to be introduced to produce more responsible behaviour on the part of the country’s pubs and clubs.

Jack Cummins, one of Scotland’s foremost licensing experts, said: “It has yet to be established whether, under Scots law, a licensee owes a ‘duty of care’ to members of the public who may be affected by the acts of their intoxicated patrons. The day could well come when a court decides that allowing a customer to consume an excessive amount of alcohol, or worse still, encouraging excessive consumption, creates a foreseeable risk to third parties, rendering the licensee answerable in damages to victims of violence.” Others, however, have opposed the idea as leading to great injustice, promoting a harmful ‘compensation culture’ and as undermining the personal responsibility of the drinkers themselves.

The Irish Case

In the Irish case, the two barmen were put on trial following the death of a British customer, Graham Parrish, who died of acute alcoholic poisoning after celebrating his 26th birthday at a hotel in Thurles, Ireland in 2008. Among the drinks he had consumed was one containing multiple ‘shots’ in one glass which he downed in one go. The two defendants told the trial jury that they would have declined to serve this particular drink had they understood it was not going to be shared between Mr Parrish and his friends. The charge came under the common law heading of ‘involuntary manslaughter’, where the accused does not intend to harm the victim, but acted in such a negligent way it was foreseeable that harm would ensue.

The Irish Times reported that evidence was presented at the trial that Mr Parish had begun drinking at about 7pm with some friends and had drunk eight pints by 10pm when he and his friends began ‘to race their pints’. When he went to the toilet, his friends twice ordered vodkas to put in his pint.

Mr Parish drank both pints unaware they contained shots. Around 10.30pm, some of his friends ordered 10 shots in a pint glass and Mr Dalton, the barman on duty at the time, asked Mr Wright, his manager, if it was all right to put so much spirits in one glass. Wright told the Irish police that he agreed to serve the drink on the understanding that it would be shared and not downed in one go as it ultimately was, Mr Parrish being spurred on by his friends who bet on him to drink it.

Mr Parrish later fell off his stool and was left in an upstairs function room by his friends where he was checked on at about midnight and found to be snoring. But he was later discovered unconscious by a night porter at about 6am and pronounced dead at 7.15am. A post mortem revealed he had a blood alcohol level of 375mgs per 100mls, which proved fatal.

Legal liability and alcohol policy

The authors of the text book of alcohol policy, ‘Alcohol: No Ordinary Commodity’, state that holding servers legally liable for the consequences of providing more alcohol to persons who are already intoxicated, or those underage, has shown consistent benefits as a policy measure in the US. In particular, States that hold bar owners and staff legally liable for damage attributable to intoxication have lower rates of traffic fatalities and homicide.

However, in Europe, there appear to be greater legal obstacles in the way of bringing successful prosecutions against licensees. While there do not seem to have been many cases brought before the courts, most of those that have been brought seem to have been lost, including that of the Irish barmen.

For example, in 2003 in Scotland, twelve problem drinkers made an attempt to sue drink manufacturers for failing to warn them of the dangers of alcohol. The group, aged between 18 and 60, claimed that drinking had led to ill health, loss of jobs and the breakdown of relationships, damaging their quality of life. They argued that the drink manufacturers owed them a duty of care to warn of the dangers of addiction. However, the case was not successful.

Irish Acquittal

In the Irish case, the judge directed the jury to acquit the defendants. He found that, while there was enough evidence of ‘gross negligence’ by the men to be brought to the jury, the fact that Parish had taken the decision to consume the alcohol broke the ‘chain of causation’ linking the barmen’s actions to his death.

The Irish Times, in an analysis of the case, commented that the barmen’s case followed another Irish High Court judgment which also emphasised the personal responsibility of the consumer, rather than that of the providers of the alcohol, for any injury that followed. In that High Court civil case which involved drink driving, Mr Justice Feeney reviewed the law in several common law jurisdictions about the responsibility of bar staff for the actions of those who consume alcohol on their premises. He said there was a wide divergence between Australia and the UK on the one hand, and Canada and the US on the other, in their attitudes towards the responsibilities of alcohol providers. He pointed out that this reflected the different historical and cultural contexts. Both the US and Canada had had years of prohibition, and this was reflected in their continuing approach to alcohol.

The Canadian courts had found that providers owed a broad duty of care to those consuming their alcohol, and US laws in most states held retail establishments accountable for harm, death or other damages caused by an intoxicated customer.

However, in Australia, the courts declined to impose alcohol-provider liability, and in the UK, while each case was fact-dependent, there was a clear reluctance to impose liability except in exceptional circumstances. He agreed with this approach, and found the bar staff in this instance did not owe a duty of care to the drinkdriver.

The Irish Times concluded that this judgment, combined with the acquittal of the barmen, means that, except in exceptional circumstances, criminal responsibility for death or injury arising from consuming large amounts of alcohol rests with the consumer, not the provider.