system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
I believe holding bartenders legally liable for drunk drivers is bullshit. CMV

Imagine this very common scenario: A man walks into a crowded bar, where the bartender can't possibly be expected to keep a careful eye on every single patron. He pays cash for his drinks all night, preventing the bartender from seeing a concise list of how drunk the guy might be. The entire time, as he's an experienced drunk, he's speaking clearly enough and walking cleanly enough that you believe him to be far less drunk than he is.

But he leaves the bar and drives home. He gets pulled over, or hits a tree, or any number of other terrible things, and it's discovered he's over the legal limit. All of a sudden, depending on the state (or even country,) the bartender may be sued in civil court or may face criminal charges for allowing the guy to leave and go drive drunk.

Now this is just one scenario, but the number of different scenarios that would prevent a bartender from accurately identifying someone who must be kept from driving *far outweigh* the number of scenarios where the bartender may stop the drunk without putting himself or others in danger.

You have to be a grown adult to purchase and consume alcohol in a bar, and you are thus responsible for your own actions. I believe that civilly or criminally holding someone else responsible for your poor decisions is utter bullshit, and the practice should be stopped. CMV.
gpt
It's a negligence standard, not absolute liability - the bartender isn't *automatically* liable because the drunk guy did damage. The bartender only becomes liable (and then only partially) if the negligence standard is met - did the bartender behave like a reasonably competent bartender and if not did that failure actually cause any damage?