On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 00:15:57 -0500, "Jeff Franks"
wrote in Message-Id:
:

But what of the *en route,* party-attendee pilot who finds himself
without a convenient place to wait out the required 8 hour period?
Will he truly find himself "more refreshed" as promised by Mr. Honeck
in that article? What are his options?

He can:

1. Rent a room from Mr. Honeck for 8 hours at the _daily_
rate _if_ there is a vacancy.

2. He can rent a room someplace else for 8 hours at full
rate _if_ there is a vacancy, and in addition incur round
trip transportation charges.

3. He can walk the streets, or otherwise kill time, for 8
hours, then depart for OSH in less than optimal physical
condition.

3. He can depart for OSH at his convenience, and disregard
the regulations.

4. ...


So if the pilot ends up walking the street because he drank when he
shouldn't have.....this is Jay's fault?

Is it good manners for a host to fail to provide for his guests needs
that arise as a result of accepting his host's invitation?

So while the options he faces don't preclude him from operating his
aircraft within the regulations, the choice is likely to be costly,
perhaps more costly than anticipated.

More costly than anticipated by the pilot? SO WHAT??!?!?! Thats the pilots
problem. If he had planned on leaving 3 hours later, he should have drank
Diet Coke. This is NOT Jay's issue.

I'm merely pointing out the facts that an *en route,* party-attendee
pilot faces that might influence his (possibly addled?) judgement.


What sort of host puts his guests in such a situation? I say it's a
host who places his own interests above those of fellow airmen enticed
by his ill conceived marketing scheme.

"...puts guests in such a situation"???? Jay is not putting ANYONE in ANY
situation.

Inviting guests who will be grounded for a third of a day subsequent
to attending the party, without providing them with a place to
wait-out the mandatory flight prohibition period, is putting them in
an awkward position in my opinion. Being an innkeeper, Mr. Honeck's
financial incentive, while somewhat covert, is apparent upon
examination of his free beer offer. Indeed, he subsequently reported
that his inn was fulled to capacity (ostensibility, with paying
guests).

We're not talking about 5 year olds being attracted to the
playground equipment in a building zone.

Even if they PUBLICLY conduct themselves like the above referenced
5-year olds? :-)

We're talking about adults who can legally consume alcohol whenever they like.
If they bust a reg in the process....oops, still not Jay's fault.

Where I reside, social hosts and bartenders are legally responsible
for the actions of their guests. If they allow guests to take to the
highway while intoxicated, they are subject to legal action. It's
easy to draw a parallel to airways and federal regulations requiring 8
hours abstinence.

Here's some information relating to social host laws:

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~leg450/mcguigg.htm
Under traditional common law tort analysis, our inquiry is whether
a social host violated a duty to an injured third person by
serving an alcoholic beverage to a guest whose negligent operation
of a motor vehicle, while adversely affected by the alcohol,
caused injury to a third person. Such an inquiry would require us
to consider whether the social host unreasonably created a risk of
injury to a person who the social host should reasonably have
foreseen might be injured as a result of the guest's intoxication.
If a social host acted negligently in serving an alcoholic
beverage to a guest when there was such a foreseeable risk of
injury to another and injury resulted from the guest's negligence
caused by his intoxication, the law would ordinarily impose
liability in tort on the social host, ...


There are, of course, differences between the operation of a
commercial establishment selling alcoholic beverages for
consumption on the premises and the furnishing of alcoholic
beverages to guests in one's home. Balancing these differences,
courts have found it easier to impose a duty of care on the
licensed operator than on the social host. The threat of tort
liability may serve the public purpose of offsetting the
commercial operator's financial incentive to encourage drinking.
The means of serving beverages in a bar, tavern, or restaurant
normally permits closer control and monitoring of customers and
their consumption than is typically possible in private
gatherings. The commercial vendor may generally (but certainly not
always) have more experience in identifying intoxicated drinkers
than would social hosts and would be better able to"shut off"
consumption without the embarrassment that a social host would
suffer. It has also been suggested that licensed operators can be
expected to have insurance against loss whereas a private
individual would not. Some courts have regarded these various
differences sufficient to justify imposing a duty on licensed
vendors but not on social hosts. See, e.g., Harriman v.Smith, 697
S.W.2d 219, 221 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985); Settlemyer v. Wilmington
Veterans Post No. 49, 11 Ohio St. 3d 123, 127 (1984). Others have
considered the distinctions insignificant in assessing whether a
duty should be imposed, although the differences might have a
bearing on whether particular conduct was negligent. See Coulter
v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 144, 155(1978); Kelly v. Gwinnell,
96 N.J. 538, 547-548 (1984); Koback v. Crook, 123 Wis. 2d
259,267-268 (1985). . . .


There are a few cases which have imposed social host liability
when, as here, the intoxicated guest who operated a motor vehicle
was an adult. In Coulter v. Superior Court, 21 Cal. 3d 144,
149-150 (1978), the Supreme Court of California concluded, on both
statutory and common law grounds, that "a social host or other
noncommercial provider of alcoholic beverages owes to the general
public a duty to refuse to furnish such beverages to an obviously
intoxicated person if, under the circumstances, such person
thereby constitutes a reasonably foreseeable danger or risk of
injury to third persons." n8 The "social hosts" in the Coulter
case were the owner-operator and the manager of an apartment
complex alleged to have served a guest(apparently an adult) large
quantities of alcoholic beverages when they knew or should have
known that she was becoming "excessively intoxicated," that she
customarily drank to excess, and that she would be driving a motor
vehicle. Id. at 148. ...


We would recognize a social host's liability to a person injured
by an intoxicated guest's negligent operation of a motor vehicle
where a social host who knew or should have known that his guest
was drunk, nevertheless gave him or permitted him to take an
alcoholic drink and thereafter, because of his intoxication, the
guest negligently operated a motor vehicle causing the third
person's injury. In deciding whether the social host exercised
ordinary prudence in such circumstances, a relevant consideration
will be whether the social host knew or reasonably should have
known that the intoxicated guest might presently operate a motor
vehicle. . .


http://www.alcoholdrugnewsroom.org/p..._Host_5_03.pdf
Social host liability laws are being implemented across the nation
to impose civil penalties, usually in the form of monetary
damages, on social hosts for injuries caused by their intoxicated
guests. New Jersey was the first state to adopt a social host
liability law. Since then Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Massachusetts, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Hampshire, New
Mexico, Oregon and Vermont have followed suit.


http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issue...th63_text.html
... in 1978[55] the Supreme Court of California held that a social
host could be liable to third persons injured as a result of the
intoxication of the consumer[56] Justice Richardson, with whom the
majority agreed, held that "a social host who furnishes alcoholic
beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, under circumstances
which create a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm, to others, may
be held legally accountable to those third persons who are injured
when that harm occurs"[57] ...


Social Host Liability

Courts in various states of the US (California, Minnesota, Iowa
and New Jersey) have found limited causes of action to lie against
social hosts for injuries caused by intoxicated guests[53] The New
Jersey Supreme Court ruled in June 1984 that "where the social
host directly serves the guest and continues to do so even after
the guest is physically intoxicated, knowing that the guest will
soon be driving home, the social host may be liable for the
consequences of the resulting drunken driving"[54] Even earlier,
in 1978[55] the Supreme Court of California held that a social
host could be liable to third persons injured as a result of the
intoxication of the consumer[56] Justice Richardson, with whom the
majority agreed, held that "a social host who furnishes alcoholic
beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, under circumstances
which create a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm, to others, may
be held legally accountable to those third persons who are injured
when that harm occurs"[57] ...


The case of Baumeister must serve as a warning to hosts (and more
particularly to household insurers). The accountability of
licensed hoteliers, with a professional interest in making profits
from serving intoxicating liquor, must attract increasing
attention from the courts, in a climate where the statistics show
a connection between alcohol and road users and where, for the
seriously injured, damages awards are ever increasing. ...

....


I can't believe that someone could think it would be.

Apparently your lack of belief is not shared by the Judicial system as
is evident by the quotes above.

But a _publicly_ advertised tailhookesque marketing campaign is still
a damaging image of airmen, at the wrong time.

PR for pilots should always be on the front of our minds.

I'm happy we agree about that.

But this is about personal responsibility,

It's about PUBLICLY providing intoxicating liquor to airmen, as well
as host and guest responsibility.

not some liberal wanting to get rich off of "evil big insurance".

It could potentially be about an injured party recovering damages from
an insured (or not) social host.

In any event, I think we can agree, that a _publicly_ advertised
tailhookesque marketing campaign is a damaging image of airmen,
especially at this time of public fear and distrust of airmen and
small airplanes incited by the news media seeking sensational stories.
--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,