- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Fred's Bar lawsuit over patron fight death moves forward...
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:58 am to RanchoLaPuerto
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:58 am to RanchoLaPuerto
quote:
you’ve got a duty.
For how long?
1
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:58 am to jbgleason
Was this an exception of no cause of action or a motion for summary judgment? If the former, I'm not really that surprised, as state district courts hardly ever throw out lawsuits at the pleading stage, no matter how meritless the suit is.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:59 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
TA: I mean, I don't like it, but it's pretty well established law and precedent that a bar has to monitor it's customers and make some determination of drunkeness level and act accordingly to stop it.
Which is bullshite IMO, but it's well established. Wanna be in the bar business, gotta play by them rules.
It is a dumb rule. The person is an adult and should monitor their own alcohol intake. Not once in my life have I thought damn that bar shouldn't have been serving me it is their fault I got too drunk.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 9:59 am to redneck
quote:
So what are they suppose to do? Kick one group out and put the other group in timeout until the first group gets picked up by an uber?
Report to the cops on duty and let the cops intervene. Problem solved.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:00 am to jbgleason
It’s unfortunate but the guy mutually agreed to the fight because he got up in someone’s personal space and swung at the guy.
There is no wrongful anything here. It’s a freak thing but that’s part of a consequence of fight.
There is no wrongful anything here. It’s a freak thing but that’s part of a consequence of fight.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:00 am to RanchoLaPuerto
quote:
When you put them outside, you damn well knew they were going to keep fighting.
Throw one out and make the other call an Uber. Or send out a man-mountain with them to keep them from killing each other in the parking lot.
Show me where one of the parties was begging to stay inside because they were scared of the other party and I will listen. These dudes were all apparently committed to mutual combat. They wanted to fight. If I am the bar owner, the only duty I feel at that point is to protect my other patrons and employees from this group of idiots.
It's like someone said earlier, I think personal responsibility has to come into play here. They decided to get drunk. They decided to fight. They need to own the consequences. Fred's didn't pour liquor down their throats or make them start swinging on each other.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:03 am to thadcastle
quote:
It is a dumb rule. The person is an adult and should monitor their own alcohol intake. Not once in my life have I thought damn that bar shouldn't have been serving me it is their fault I got too drunk.
Another problem too is what if someone else bought the drinks at the bar? How often do you go up and buy 2 or 3 drinks for you and your friends?
I only cut off one person who was visibly wasted in my years bartending. Sure enough, 10 minutes later he had a beer in hand. I didn't serve that guy that beer... neither did the other bartender working with me because we both agreed it was time to cut him off.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:04 am to jbgleason
quote:
Marsiglia,
Is he affiliated with the construction group that basically built all of Elmwood?
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:04 am to jbgleason
quote:
The plaintiffs contend the defendants are liable for Repath’s death, alleging Fred’s violated state liquor laws that prohibit licensed establishments from selling or serving alcohol to intoxicated persons. A
How does this jive with our anti-Dram shop law?
LINK
quote:
A. The legislature finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the sale or serving or furnishing of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death and property damage, inflicted by an intoxicated person upon himself or upon another person.
B. Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no person holding a permit under either Chapter 1 or Chapter 2 of Title 26 of the Louisiana Revised Statutes of 1950, nor any agent, servant, or employee of such a person, who sells or serves intoxicating beverages of either high or low alcoholic content to a person over the age for the lawful purchase thereof, shall be liable to such person or to any other person or to the estate, successors, or survivors of either for any injury suffered off the premises, including wrongful death and property damage, because of the intoxication of the person to whom the intoxicating beverages were sold or served.
C.(1) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, no social host who serves or furnishes any intoxicating beverage of either high or low alcoholic content to a person over the age for the lawful purchase thereof shall be liable to such person or to any other person or to the estate, successors, or survivors of either for any injury suffered off the premises, including wrongful death and property damage, because of the intoxication of the person to whom the intoxicating beverages were served or furnished.
(2) No social host who owns, leases, or otherwise lawfully occupies premises on which, in his absence and without his consent, intoxicating beverages of either high or low alcoholic content are consumed by a person over the age for the lawful purchase thereof shall be liable to such person or to any other person or to the estate, successors, or survivors of either for any injury suffered off the premises, including wrongful death and property damage, because of the intoxication of the person who consumed the intoxicating beverages.
D. The insurer of the intoxicated person shall be primarily liable with respect to injuries suffered by third persons.
E. The limitation of liability provided by this Section shall not apply to any person who causes or contributes to the consumption of alcoholic beverages by force or by falsely representing that a beverage contains no alcohol.
Seems like they're trying to create a loophole.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:06 am to Meauxjeaux
quote:
but it's pretty well established law and precedent that a bar has to monitor it's customers and make some determination of drunkeness level and act accordingly to stop it.
We literally have a law stating the opposite.
That is true in other states, but our law specifically rejects the argument.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:06 am to brewhan davey
Sounds like it was a no cause of action. I am willing to bet Fred's bouncers regularly handled issues in the parking lot immediately in front of the bar and that would possibly defeat a summary judgment.
I saw a transcript one time where a bouncer in Tigerland thought that once someone was outside the trashcans near the front door you were free to frick them up.
I saw a transcript one time where a bouncer in Tigerland thought that once someone was outside the trashcans near the front door you were free to frick them up.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:07 am to jbgleason
The new American dream is to get paid because a relative died doing something they shouldn’t have been doing
Gonna take a 23 and me and see if I’m related to this guy and George Floyd
Gonna take a 23 and me and see if I’m related to this guy and George Floyd
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:07 am to jbgleason
i remember the orginal thread on this, it is like an acid flash back to dealing with drunk townies in tigerland
it is terrible the dude died but a 26 year old father has no business fighting dudes in tigerland.
it is terrible the dude died but a 26 year old father has no business fighting dudes in tigerland.
quote:
According to the report, two groups of men were seen on surveillance speaking to each other when Repath was seen punching a person in the head.
The report says the person who was punched was restrained by other men in the group.
Later, Baton Rouge police said Repath was seen backing out of the bar while speaking with Marsiglia.
According to police, Repath tried to punch Marsiglia, but he was able to dodge it. That is when arrest documents say Marsiglia pushed Repath, who fell and hit his head on the pavement.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:08 am to Dire Wolf
Once I saw this
I had VIOLENT flashbacks
quote:
Repath, a 26-year-old Westwego man,
I had VIOLENT flashbacks
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:09 am to Dizz
quote:
Sounds like it was a no cause of action.
That would make more sense.
quote:
I am willing to bet Fred's bouncers regularly handled issues in the parking lot immediately in front of the bar and that would possibly defeat a summary judgment.
If I were Fred's counsel, I'd still be very weary about the difference between a dismissal and going to trial coming down to the testimony of a couple college kids who work as bouncers.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
anti-Dram shop law
I learned something today. I can now go home fulfilled.
TYFYS
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:13 am to RanchoLaPuerto
quote:
Throw one out and make the other call an Uber. Or send out a man-mountain with them to keep them from killing each other in the parking lot.
That’s pretty fricking stupid.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:14 am to brewhan davey
quote:
If I were Fred's counsel, I'd still be very weary about the difference between a dismissal and going to trial coming down to the testimony of a couple college kids who work as bouncers.
I am sure Fred's has rigorous bouncer training and defined policies and procedures for dealing with these situations.
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:16 am to GreatLakesTiger24
quote:And not even by a punch. Just getting pushed over
Imagine your legacy is starting a fight at a college bar as a 26 year old and being killed by a skinny catholic school kid
Posted on 8/12/25 at 10:16 am to jbgleason
Maybe it's the "off the premises" language, I'm not sure.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News