English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have been told (by a superior in my company) that this is the reason we shouldn't purchase alcohol for employees at, say, our annual Christmas party. Because if someone leaves the party drunk and has an accident and kills someone, then the company could be sued. I am under the impression that in New Mexico, which is where the company is, the law holds the seller of the alcohol liable, rather than the purchaser. Can anyone shed some light on the facts?

2007-08-27 13:09:29 · 2 answers · asked by heathnemily 2 in Politics & Government Law & Ethics

2 answers

If, for example, a bar sells more booze to someone who is obviously drunk, the bar may be liable if that person has an accident.

The bar is irresponsibly providing liquor to a drunk person. If your company provides liquor to someone who has an accident, they may also be liable. They would be acting as the provider of the booze, not the purchaser.

2007-08-27 13:23:05 · answer #1 · answered by Aldo the Apache 6 · 0 0

This is an area where the actual law does not matter. If the company provides alcohol, and an accident occurs, someone WILL sue. Even if the case is dismissed, the suit will cost the company money. A jury may choose to award damages simply because the 'victim' needs it. In any case, many companies have decided it is simply easier not to provide alcohol.

2007-08-27 20:42:02 · answer #2 · answered by STEVEN F 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers