A Twelve-Year Regular and the Bottle on the Bar
Rick is 58, a regular for 12 years, 5'10" and about 230 pounds, and a heavy tipper. He arrives at 7:00 p.m. on a Thursday and tells the bartender he had "a couple" at home and started a new prescription for muscle spasms that afternoon. He orders a double bourbon, finishes it by 7:25, orders a second at 7:40, and a third at 8:10. By 8:15 he has told the same story about his boat three times, knocked over a glass of water, and walked to the restroom with one hand on the bar. He speaks clearly when he orders and says, "I'm fine - I've been drinking here since before you were born." The bartender is 21, has worked six weeks, and her older brother is a friend of Rick's. She is unsure, does not want to embarrass him, and does not want to lose the tip. At 8:35 Rick orders a fourth double and asks her to "just leave the bottle."
1. Using only observable indicators, is Rick visibly intoxicated? What does the law require at this point?
Read the worked answer
Yes. The indicators are observable and documented in the scenario, which is exactly the standard: repeated story, loss of fine motor control (spilled water, hand on the bar for balance), and a pace of consumption (three doubles in roughly 70 minutes) that no body weight makes safe. Add his own statements - alcohol at home before arriving and a new prescription for muscle spasms, which is a central nervous system depressant that compounds alcohol's effects. His clear speech when ordering is one data point among many; intoxicated people frequently rally to place an order, and the ability to speak clearly does not offset balance loss and repetition.
Indiana prohibits selling or furnishing alcohol to a person who is visibly intoxicated, and the standard is what the server can see and hear, not a breath test, not a blood alcohol calculation, and not the customer's assurance that he is fine. His 12 years of patronage, his size, and his tolerance are legally irrelevant, and the tip is not a factor the law recognizes.
The honest answer for the bartender is that the decision point was the third drink, not the fourth. By 8:15 the signs were already visible; the fourth order is simply where the question becomes unavoidable.
2. What should the bartender say and do at 8:35?
Read the worked answer
Short, calm, and final, without an argument about counting drinks:
"Rick, I'm not going to serve you another one tonight - I'm cutting you off. I'll get you a water and something to eat, and I'll call you a ride whenever you're ready." Then remove the glass and do not leave the bottle within reach. "Leaving the bottle" is not a gray area; it is the most aggravated version of over-service.
Do not do: recite how many drinks he has had (invites a debate you cannot win and escalates), apologize repeatedly, blame the manager in a way that invites him to appeal, or disappear and let another server take the order. Tell the other staff and the manager on duty immediately, because the most common way a cutoff fails is a second server who did not know about it.
Offer alternatives that address the actual needs: water, food, a ride, a place to sit, a phone call to his brother's friend if that helps. Coffee is a courtesy, not a sobering agent - do not present it as one. If he becomes angry, keep distance and a clear path; the manager takes over if he persists.
If he insists on driving later, that is the next decision point: persuade, offer to call someone, offer a cab, and if he gets behind the wheel, call police with the plate and direction. Documenting that call protects the business as much as it protects the public.
3. Suppose Rick is served the fourth double without objection and drives home. What would an investigator or plaintiff's attorney focus on, and what should the file have contained?
Read the worked answer
They would focus on the moment the signs became visible and on what the house did after that. The strongest facts against the tavern are the ones in this scenario: a known regular, an admitted prescription, an admitted pre-arrival drink, three doubles in 70 minutes, a spilled glass, and balance loss - all before the fourth order. A plaintiff's attorney would also look for evidence that her relationship to Rick (family friend, regular, tip) influenced the judgment, and for evidence that no manager was told.
The file should have contained: the exact time of the cutoff, the drinks served with times, the specific behaviors observed at each point (not "acted drunk" but "held the bar walking to the restroom, repeated the boat story three times, knocked over water at 8:15"), what was offered, what Rick said in response, who was notified, whether a ride was arranged, and whether police were called. During the incident, contemporaneous notes are worth more than memory; after it, a written incident report should be completed before the shift ends.
The broader lesson is that the cutoff decision should be made early, when it is easy. Once a visibly intoxicated regular is served a fourth double, the tavern's exposure for a later crash is substantial, and no amount of after-the-fact paperwork cures the service decision itself.