The government often entertains strange pursuits in the name of justice. In the United States, a man was choked to death for selling loose cigarettes. That the state did it in the pursuit of the social contract doesn't make it right; and one should consider carefully the principles under which the state should pursue justice, with a careful eye towards how the state is liable to twist those principles to hurt the least politically empowered.
if your bar is running every tactic possible to keep you there and drinking and ignoring the consequences of it then yes i think they would have to answer for that.
That's a dangerous call to make. An Orlando nightclub once ran every tactic to keep its patrons there, and they fell victim to a predator. If the nightclub weren't working so hard to keep its patrons there, fewer people would have been victimized Are they liable? Why or why not?
They might be liable for not adequately protecting the patrons, for example. My uninformed personal opinion is that they are not liable in this case since they did have a security guard, but that guard is also being sued (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/06/0...).
Otherwise yes, it is quite possible to be liable for whatever happens on your private property. If drug deals are taking place between third parties in your house won’t you be liable? If you allowed those parties there you most definitely will be.
You're still punting the ethical question to a question of law. If someone is on your property and a car off the street swerves into your property and kills them surely you wouldn't be liable... or let's say a meteor hits your guest. Surely there is a limit to where liability kicks in. Where should that limit be and why
If your business is in letting the cars swerve onto your driveway then you will be liable. Don’t compare normal and regular human behavior on a platform to a meteor hitting the guests.
Whether liability and damages are assigned would depend on the details, but the principle is quite clear here.