This is more of a September Roundup, really. As promised, I am (finally) back. My goal with this blog is to have more in-depth content and less filler, so I might not post every day from here on, but the posts should be longer with more original thought. But I do plan on keeping the Roundup around. Once a week, just to catch things that slipped through the cracks.

The big one, of course, is the culmination of the same-sex marriage battle. That will have it’s own post.

In national news, the Supreme Court ended their recess today, so there will be quite a bit to talk about going forward. Stay tuned.

The state has been busy, though. Here’s one I’d like to highlight regarding dram shop liability. A quick write-up can be found over at the ever-wonderful Indiana Law Blog.

Dram shop laws are laws which put liability on businesses that serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons who then commit torts. As an example, if a person who is visibly drunk enters a bar, is served alcohol, and then causes an accident which injures others, not only the drunk driver, but the bar, as well, is liable for the damages.

Why is this important? Because often, the driver doesn’t have the money to pay the victim. So the victim will go after the business instead. Now, the bar then has the right to sue the driver, but if the reason the victim went after the bar is because the driver was broke, the bar is likely to end up not getting paid back.

There are a few things to remember about dram shop liability. First, they vary from state to state. They are stricter in some states.

Second, in Indiana, the standard is set pretty high. A bar is only liable if they had actual knowledge that the patron was visibly intoxicated, and the intoxication was a proximate cause of the injuries.

Third, “actual knowledge” can actually be interpreted as knowledge that the server had or should have had given the circumstances. For example, even if someone doesn’t act drunk, if you serve him a liter of vodka within the span of an hour, you should know that he is drunk, and should have stopped serving him at some point.

Fourth, the person doesn’t have to get drunk at your bar. You only have to have served him at least one drink after he was already visibly intoxicated to be held liable.

And, finally, thanks to the case discussed in the ILB link above, you don’t need to pinpoint the exact server who actually served the drinks. You can infer that it happened in a particular establishment, and hold that establishment responsible.

Now, it most cases in Indiana, the bar is usually not held responsible. This is a very pro-business statute. But if bars want to protect themselves, they need only teach their servers one unbreakable rule – one which we followed back when I used to run a bar – if someone appears intoxicated, simply do not serve them anything, at all, ever.

Locally, here’s a fun one. A woman is charging a Fort Wayne company with firing her for being pregnant. I’ll be keeping a sharp eye on this one as it moves through federal court.

One of the most interesting rape cases I’ve seen has drawn to a close (at least at the trial level). Paul Bell had sex at a party with a young woman who at first thought Bell was an ex-boyfriend. Versions differ here, though. According to her, when she realized he wasn’t who she thought he was, he tried to make him stop. According to Bell, she consented, and the fact that she thought he was an ex-boyfriend was proof of that consent (apparently, it was accepted that she would have consented in that case). The jury convicted him of battery, but not of rape, which I said back in August was likely the jury’s way of saying, “We don’t know who to believe.” Judge Fran Gull was not happy and made it clear that, if she had the power, she’d convict him of the rape. She doesn’t have that power, though, so she gave him three years on the sexual battery. He’ll be appealing.