I think drunk driving is bad, so should I be able to sue the clerk at the liquor store

[Ocelot II]

who sells booze to my alcoholic neighbor who is probably going to drive while he's drunk? There are, of course, dram shop (civil damages) laws already that allow someone who is injured by a drunk driver to sue the bar that served him if he was visibly intoxicated. But my alcoholic neighbor hasn't harmed me and probably never will, since I am an agoraphobic busybody who never goes out, but just likes to watch my neighbors and complain about them on Nextdoor. I know from neighborhood gossip that he buys his stuff from Acme Beer & Wine down the road, and he goes there every Friday night to buy a few more cases of beer, and I also know who works there on Friday nights because I called to find out. I could use the money and I don't approve of drunk driving, so I think I'll sue that clerk, and the liquor store itself, and maybe also my neighbor's friend who goes with him and probably helps him load the cases into the car. That's $30K right there. Texas had a great idea with that abortion law. I hope my state does the same kind of thing with respect to all other illegal behaviors that people disapprove of whether or not they are personally harmed. Sometimes people on my block jaywalk, which annoys me. I should be able to sue the drivers who stop for them and let them do it.

[packman]

1. I would agree with you, but you leave out one thing

The neighbor, clerk, owner of the liquor store,etc. would all have be women.

[Haggard Celine]

2. "I'm an agoraphobic busybody...."

[at140]

3. My neighbors smoking bothers me, their drinking does not /nt

[Ocelot II]

4. I think you missed the point of the post,

which was to illustrate the absurdity of allowing lawsuits against people who have contributed to someone else's conduct by people who haven't been harmed by that conduct, as wrt the Texas abortion law.

[Voltaire2]

5. that is actually a bad example

bartenders haver been successfully sued for getting people drunk who then killed people in dui crashes.

[Ocelot II]

7. In my state they definitely have:

Minnesota Statute 340A.801:

Subdivision 1.Right of action. A spouse, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person injured in person, property, or means of support, or who incurs other pecuniary loss by an intoxicated person or by the intoxication of another person, has a right of action in the person's own name for all damages sustained against a person who caused the intoxication of that person by illegally selling alcoholic beverages. All damages recovered by a minor under this section must be paid either to the minor or to the minor's parent, guardian, or next friend as the court directs.

Also: https://jlolaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/dram_shop_materials_2011.pdf

Generally speaking, the bar, which would be insured against such things, pays the damages, since the bartender wouldn't have the money and the bar in any event would be liable under the respondeat superior doctrine. I don't know which other states have similar statutes but I'm sure MN isn't unique.

[The Magistrate]

6. Since The Suit Can Be Brought Over a Constitutionally Protected Right, Ma'am

I can see no reason a state could not announce that anyone owning a firearm could be sued, for a substantial recovery, with immunity from any adverse consequence in court....

[Effete Snob]

8. Then you might consider this article

Georgetown University Law Center
2012
The Structural Role of Private Enforcement Mechanisms in Public Law
J. Maria Glove

https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2890&context=facpub

[greenjar_01]

10. So you support the Texas law?

[Effete Snob]

11. What the fuck?

No.

Where in flying fuck does your question follow from posting a law review article, which I'm pretty sure you didn't read in six minutes, on the general concept of private rights of action in regulatory legislation?

So, you support chemical companies being able to dump poison into rivers and don't think that local citizens should be able to do anything about it? Because that's just as stupid a question.

[Ocelot II]

12. Apparently you didn't read the cited article.

It addresses situations in which a private party has been injured in some way and gives them a means to enforce mostly environmental rules and/or recover damages for their injury. The Texas abortion law, however, gives that right to any busybody at all who thinks someone has helped a woman get an abortion, even though said busybody has suffered no injury and has no relationship whatsoever to either the woman or her helper. Someone just walking down the street past a clinic who observes a woman and another person get out of a car and go into the clinic, then assume they are going in for an abortion. They could photograph people and the car's license plate and try to identify them through social media, then sue the alleged helper, who would have to defend him/herself by proving they weren't there for an abortion if that was the case (thereby invading the woman's privacy), and even if they win they have to pay their own attorneys' fees.

This is nothing like the private right of a person to sue for environmental damage.

[milestogo]

9. My ex aborted my baby when we broke up so I get to claim $10,000 instead of paying child support!