I'm going to sue Playgirl for making me jack off.

What a gentlemen. Get's drunk, beats his wife and then blames it on someone else.

What? Even back when alcohol was free on intercontinental flights, the attendants were always polite, but firm about cutting people off (in coach, at least). Especially if most of the plane is trying to sleep.

So the airline isn't responsible for his domestic violence, but they should be treated like a bartender.

This is ridiculous. Just because the man wasn't responsible enough to take care of HIMSELF, he feels the need to sue the airline. It's like when bullies pick on kids to make themselves feel better. The bully is the drunk and he needs to pick on the airline to make him feel better for his alcoholic tendencies.

@FuryOfFirestorm: I'm going to sue consumerist for making me angry at stupid people.

(not you...and not really...love the site!)

I thought that Airlines were already responsible if they serve someone enough that they are drunk then get a DUI.

And the Airlines do seem to charge coach. So what is the difference? The flying waitress takes your order, pours the drink and takes your money (if in coach).

While they can't be responsible for the womans inability to keep quiet, they also can't be blamed for the husbands actions. But if bars are held to that standand for DUI, then airlines should.

Airlines are certainly responsible for making me not want to fly - can I sue them for this?

Maybe angry drunks should get visibly branded so people know not to give them alcohol?

i don't care whether it's an airline or a bar, it's your own fault you drank like an idiot and did stupid things because of it....whether it's getting into an accident or getting into a fight. take responsibility for your own actions and don't blame the bar/bartender/sports arena/fraternity. Lots of people get completely drunk and still do the right thing.

why are companies responsible for an individual's inability to limit their own consumptions? would that also make the bar owner responsible when some moron decides to drink and drive and hits someone--apparently mcdonalds is responsible for someone eating their crap 3 times a day, why wouldn't it?

ridiculous! i guess if we're going for frivolous lawsuits, this would be the way to go.

Can I cast a vote for clearing up that poll, please? As of right now, it warrants 3 very different answers:

Is an airline a flying bar? YES
Are they responsible for this sort of thing? NO
Is anyone other than you responsible for you beating up your wife?HELL NO

Wine conesur um conoseur um connosseur um tasting cat remembers to spit.

@fjordtjie: "would that also make the bar owner responsible when some moron decides to drink and drive and hits someone"

Google "Bar Owner Sued DUI" for some eye opening revelations.

i love how his wife is going along with this. the judge should laugh them out of court.

@fjordtjie: But bartenders CAN be held responsible for their patrons' actions IF it can be proven that the bartender served the patron while they appeared visibly intoxicated. It's hard to prove, so I just assumed it was a way to keep bartenders alert and responsible.

@fjordtjie: Because people are stupid. Know this though: just because someone else is responsible for your actions, you still have to take responsibility as well. Kind of like if you get rear ended then because of that you rear end the person in front of you. you and the person behind you will share in the responsibility for the person you hit (they'll get more of the blame).

In this case, if a guy gets a DUI after driving home from a bar. He'll still have a DUI. If the bartender didn't properly cut him off, they will be held responsible as well. It's partially for safety and to stave off unchecked greed...mostly for safety though, who better to look out for someone than someone who could stand to lose a lot of money if they don't?

There are more ridiculous trails of responsibility out there...this is just the beginning

@joeblevins:
"While they can't be responsible for the womans inability to keep quiet, they also can't be blamed for the husbands actions."

This made me lol at work!!

@joeblevins: "I thought that Airlines were already responsible if they serve someone enough that they are drunk then get a DUI."

I know this are fact because I saw it on teh Law and Orderz.

^_^

@joeblevins: I know that the flight attendants really like it when you say, "Hey waitress, get over here."

Can I blame the bar if I spent all my money there and no longer afford my college bill?

If so I'm not gonna hold back!! A round on me everyone!!

the airline should be fined for serving alcohol to someone who was visibly drunk. anyone who has permission or license to serve alcohol needs to be responsible for cutting patrons off. but they should be fined by the FAA or whatever, not sued by an idiot and his wife.

Did United Airlines charge him the Spousal Abuse Fee?

Obviously this couple is just going after the deep pockets of a large corperation. If I got "overserved" at one of my local watering holes (which is quite easy here in MI... in fact I don't think the staff is happy until you are overserved), went home, beat my wife, could I blame it on the bar? Or how about we blame it on the company that manufactured the booze that turned me into a violent wife beater? This is ridiculous, it had better get thrown out of court.

Hmm. Let me see how I can profit by this line of stupidity.

I know. I'll go out and get drunk. Then, I won't show up for work the next day.

I'll be fired.

Then I can sue the bar for not stopping me from drinking, and making me lose my job. They will need to pay me my wages and give me my health insurance until I find another job.

Which is gonna take me a while, because people typically won't hire someone who shows up drunk for an interview.

Then, the first bar can sue the second bar for allowing me to get drunk and not get the job!

Brilliant!

I hate people refusing to take responsibility for their actions.

The airlines have to make there money somehow. Care for another drink?

It's people like this that mess it up for everybody. :(

@bravo369: true, but this doesn't mean someone visibly drunk shouldn't be cut off.

I once tried to sue the makers of Southern Comfort for an exceptionally horrific one-night stand I had back in 1987.

negligent infliction of emotional distress, false advertising, failure to provide warning labels, etc.

@Meltdown: I've seen a guy so drunk, he crawled out of the waiting line at customs. And he still was polite, and didn't hit anyone. HE GOT OUT ON HIS KNEES, AND STILL ACTED HUMAN.

@mcjake: Hes just being traditional ;)

Seriously though, the airline needs to cut people off who are drinking excessively.

@weakdome: Is anyone other than you responsible for you beating up your wife? HELL NO

I agree. If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

@katylostherart: The should have cut him off, but his actions are not their fault.

OMG. I'm disgusted. Not with the story but with myself because my sick depraved little mind actually finds this funny.

I blame Family Guy. Imma sue FOX right now

How bad were her injuries? The fact she's going along with it makes it sound like a planned scam to get free money from someone, as most lawsuits seem to be these days.
Either way, its your own damn fault if you can't control yourself. Whats next, a man sues some lady because her slutty outfit made it so "that he could not manage himself," resulting in his raping of her.

The airlines are not flying bars. Bars would card me, I could drink on a flight at around 16.

Then the headline for you is: Man sues Playgirl for getting him aroused causing him to beat his wanker off!

@Meltdown: You mean like selling alcohol to somebody who's obviously already wasted? Yeah, I hate it when bartenders and bars don't take responsibility for their actions in doing this.

I'm not saying UA is in fact at fault here, but the OMG LAWSUIT crowd is tiresome. Apparently responsibility only applies to sellers, not buyers.

@Murph1908:
I don't know about suing the bar, but you'd have a good case against getting fired - when I worked in retail, my boss told me that at a manager's summit she attended, she was told that if an employee was a habitual drinker and came in drunk, she couldn't fire him because alcoholism is a disease.

This might make sense if his wife was the flight attendant?

@katylostherart: Yeah, there is no freak'n way this tool should profit from beating his wife.

@PittDragon: Traditional would be to blame his wife.

@bravo369: I agree. Inebriation should not be a legal defense, and usually is not. However, this whole idea of an airline (or regular old bar, for that matter) being responsible for deciding when people have had too much to drink muddies things up.

I agree that someone serving alcohol can and should cut someone off if he or she is deemed sufficiently drunk. However, they should not be held legally responsible for making that call. It's sometimes hard to tell if someone is really smashed, particularly if he is sitting quietly in an airplane, and the douche 3 rows back keeps ringing his service bell, and there is a screaming baby across the isle, etc etc. Being a flight attendant (or bar tender) is hectic enough without trying to monitor the BAC of everyone in the joint.

Simply put, you are responsible for what you put into your body. I'm sorry, that's just how it should be. Incidentally, this same rationale can (and should) be used to argue for the legalization of other drugs.

@Canino: Yeah, we need to get back to the good old days of DIY spousal abuse. This outsourcing shit has got to stop.

@docrice: Yeah, I have heard that too. And yet, if they find a little weed in your urine (which is no indication of on-the-job intoxication) they can fire your ass immediately.

I'm sorry, but showing up drunk to work hurts your performance a lot more than getting stoned on friday night.

@testsicles: Sounds like you were mixing up some Pan-Galactic Gargle Blasters.

@Jigen: Hah, while it's not used as a legal defense really (and not grounds for a law suit), that very line of reasoning is often used to get people acquitted on rape charges.

It goes like this: you prove to the jury that the victim was a slut and "was asking for it". The jury no longer blames the rapist, even though no viable doubt was raised about what actually took place. Not guilty.

@Rhayader: Yes, but I didn't drink it very carefully.

@weakdome: LOL. I still think it could be worded better... saying "is an airline just a flying bar" doesn't really address whether or not they should be responsible in the same way that a terrestrial bar would be, for over-serving their customers... while we all know that, literally, an airline is a method of transportation that also happens to have a bar. What are we really trying to answer with this post?
Did you mean to ask "should airlines have bars?" because then, those answers make sense...