Tiger Woods’ Restaurant Now Implicated in Cover Up
Attorneys for the family of Nicholas Immesberger are claiming that Tiger Woods’ restaurant deleted surveillance footage of Immesberger drinking at the bar the night he died in a one-car accident. Immesberger, a former employee of the bar, got loaded after his shift and then attempted to drive home. While typical cases involving this type of accident cannot be pursued under Florida’s dram shop law, there are two exceptions.
The first exception is when the bartender knowingly serves someone under the age of 21. The second involves the distribution of alcohol to someone who has a severe alcohol problem or is an alcoholic. In this case, the family of Immesberger is claiming that the staff at Woods’ restaurant knew of his alcohol troubles and served him at least three times the legal limit and then allowed him to drive home. When he was found at the scene, he posted a blood alcohol concentration of over .25. The legal limit is .08.
Did Woods Restaurant Delete Evidence?
There are two parts to this claim. The first part involves the allegation that those who were still on their shift knew that Immesberger had gotten into a serious accident that night. The second part of the allegation is that they deleted surveillance footage of Immesberger drinking at the bar. It’s unclear whether or not that matters. While it could look incriminating, it has no bearing on what the Florida law says about host liability in the event of a serious injury.
In Florida, “dram” shops (bars and liquor stores) are given immunity from sales of liquor to the majority of individuals, even when those individuals harm themselves or others. When they do harm someone else or themselves, it is their sole responsibility to deal with the consequences which include both civil liability and criminal charges.
The Case Against Woods’ Restaurant
In order for the plaintiffs to win their lawsuit, they must prove that either the bartender who served Immesberger or management was aware that Immesberger had a serious drinking “problem” and wasn’t just a heavy drinker. While alcohol addiction does have a medical connotation, the argument will be made that Woods’ employees knew that he got wasted after his shift and then proceeded to drive home. A jury might be swayed to believe that evidence as either his fellow employees knowing about his alcohol problem or that they should have known.
However, juries are not sympathetic to individuals who get wasted and drive home on a daily basis after their shift. On some basic level, it’s only a matter of time before they kill themselves or someone else in the process. Juries also have a tendency to believe in personal responsibility. They will very likely see Immesberger as the primary creator of his own alcohol problem. Even if the law was on the side of the family, juries can be prickly when it comes to blaming someone else for your problems.
Talk to a Jacksonville Personal Injury and Wrongful Death Attorney Today
If you’ve been injured by someone else’s negligence or lost a loved one because a careless action of another, talk to a Jacksonville personal injury attorney at Gillette Law. We offer free consultations and would be happy to litigate your case.