I realize alcoholism is classed as a disease BUT there is personal responsibility. The servers KNEW the guy was a drunk, perhaps high functioning so it is sometimes not easy to see until they are almost passed out. They should have stopped serving him and taken his car keys. Under the Florida law they are liable, Tiger is the owner so he will be a part of the lawsuit whether he was present or not. Such is torte law.
Here fault is a legal term to assign damages. It's difficult for a business when employees can not be trusted to abide by the law.

His parents weren't babysitting him because they weren't the ones serving him too much alcohol, and he was at work. The establishment that wants to make a profit was serving him. There is a certain responsibility that businesses assume when they sell in the public arena. That goes for any business, not just serving alcohol.

Also, since when does someone with an addiction have the actual will power to help themselves? If you were an alcoholic and were already drunk and you had two drinks, would you be able to stop yourself from having the 3rd or 4th or 5th drink, especially when the place you are at is condoning it? People working in a bar take on part of the responsibility (and yes, the drinker takes part of the responsibility too) especially knowing he was an alcoholic and they know when people have had too much to drink. Bartenders and establishments cut people off all the time because they know when people had too much and they know the consequences and the laws pertaining to it.

You all know that drunk people can't enter into contracts, right? It's because they are incapacitated. So why would you think they could be fully responsible for something like this? Yes, if the drunk person was still alive then they would be punished according to the law also, but the server or establishment is ALSO responsible in some cases. This is one of those cases. It's almost like being responsible for a minor. Why? Because they are in a way incapacitated and aren't mentally mature yet.

I hear these kinds of arguments from right wingers on subjects. I didn't think I would hear it here.

In many cases a bartender will take your keys and call some transportation. A cab or Uber. Maybe someone who knew him would take him home. It's almost as if the guy was an unliked person and they secretly wished this on him. Some people can be real A-holes when they drink. One should know their limits. There's no excuse. This is coming from someone who has spent a few days in the drunk tank.

The idiot was drunk, knew he had an alcohol problem and drove off anyway. Hopefully he didn’t hurt anyone else along the way. The good thing is that’s another dumbfuck set of genes out of the gene pool.

This is a moeny grab and nothing more, and the family found a lawyer who was willing to bet the restaurant et al would pay a small sum to avoid the headache, and the family is hoping for a quick settlement. I doubt theyd ever admit what a small dollar figure theyd be willing to put on their loved ones life, but I'm sure the settlement will be private.

These are such bullshit

However having managed numerous restaurants in the past the law makes everyone else except the drunk responsible

At some point people have to accept responsibility for their own choices....

I think holding an establishment or bartender liable for what happens after a patron leaves is asinine. We are all adults , as adults we are responsible for our own actions. Therefore, the person who drank too much and decided to get behind the wheel is solely to blame. Everyone, I repeat, everyone knows about DUI laws and the consequences that come with them.

By law, I think they have a good case. It will probably be settled. They are liable for over serving if the person has harm come to them, especially if they knew the person had an addiction to alcohol.

Everyone involved, both directly and indirectly is at fault, albeit only technically in Tiger's case. The law is pretty clear. If you are serving a known alcoholic, you are not allowed to over serve them. For me, that means no more than two drinks per hour. If the person was drinking at work, that person is responsible, or whomever served him during his shift. The same goes for after hours or not on the clock. The alcoholic is responsible (or actually is impaired and unable to make good decisions due to both their disease and the consumed alcohol itself), the employee who over-served them is responsible (because they irresponsibly over-served a known alcoholic), and by extension the management of the establishment he was served at (because it was their establishment that both served him the alcohol as well as employed the person(s) who, either knowingly or unknowingly [ignorance of policy or the law is not a viable excuse], over-served them), and also by extension, the owners of the establishment (i.e. Tiger Woods, for the same reasons as management's liability). Personally, I think mistakes were made at every level, and the most significant were at the individual level. Bottom line: He knew he was an alcoholic, and so did his co-workers, therefore it never should have happened. There are checks and balances in place all along the string of events that failed at every turn. There is a lot to be said here about personal responsibility of the alcoholic, and I agree with those sentiments, but there is also the personal responsibility of not throwing gasoline on a barely contained fire, like the over-serving employees did. Management and owners are responsible for ensuring that their employees know and understand the law and the responsibility it places upon them.

My alcoholic son finally killed himself and now I’m going to sue Tiger Woods.

I doubt a jury will award any damages if it goes that far, which it probably won’t. More than likely it will be settled out of court for a quick cash grab. Business as usual...

Taking personal responsibility is why we don't all require caregivers to accompany us throughout the day. And I may be out of line here, but it seems to me if you're an alcoholic, you probably shouldn't be a bar tender.

The guy who did the drinking is the only one responsible.
He made the choice to drink. He made the choice to get behind the
wheel of a car.

The family is looking for someone to blame, so they don't have
to accept the responsibility that they knew he was an alcoholic,
and they couldn't stop him either.
I hope their case gets thrown out and they get nothing.

I'm really done with families wanting to blame others for the poor
choices of a family member, resulting in their death.

I lean toward personal responsibility for cases like this. I doubt if Tiger is very concerned. He no doubt has insurance and the attorneys will hash it out and come to a settlement.

It’s a great situation for the lawyers!

I think when others intervene to help someone stay sober, it's a courtesy, but personal responsibility trumps all. The man had the ultimate responsibility to ensure that he didn't drink too much and others cannot justly be held responsible so long as they never forced anything on the man.