>>I think that is what the Dram Shop and Host Liability laws are all about. It has been upheld in the Supreme court in Montana I believe. The Montana Supreme Court held a bar owner responsible for damages caused by a customer because he kept serving him alcohol even though he knew he was already intoxicated. The award was $750,000 in damages against the owner of the Town Tavern in Great Falls, MT.
>
>No, I think the situation is a little different. Up here the government liquor outlets sell you booze, but don't control your consumption. They are not a "host" in any form. A bar clearly controls consumption.

and that's exactly why the Gov won't be held responsible. Where you have some control, you have some responsibility. No control, no responsibility. Liquor boards also trumpet not drinking to excess. I suppose if, like the cigarette companies used to do, they advertised that drinking is good for you and you should drink as much as possible, then maybe there'd be a case. The way things are now, even if suits against the crown are not outlawed (and in many things they are), there is really no case to make.