2007 House Bill 4684 (Expand bar serving drunks restrictions )

Public Act 11 of 2008

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Frank Accavitti, Jr. (D) on May 1, 2007, to revise the law that prohibits a bar or restaurant from selling liquor to a person who is intoxicated, so it refers to someone who is "visibly intoxicated." The bill would place in statute current administrative rules on bars and restaurants that prohibit allowing a visibly intoxicated person fro loitering on the premises after being refused with certain narrow exceptions, prohibit a server from being visibly intoxicated, and explicitly prohibit a number of other practices that are generally banned elsewhere in statute (such as allowing illegal gambling).
- Referred to the House Regulatory Reform Committee on May 1, 2007.
  - Reported in the House on May 15, 2007, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
Passed in the House (102 to 1) on June 19, 2007. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 20, 2007.
- Referred to the Senate Economic Development and Regulatory Reform Committee on June 20, 2007.
  - Reported in the Senate on February 5, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (S-4) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the Senate on February 14, 2008. The substitute passed in the Senate by voice vote on February 14, 2008.
Passed in the Senate (37 to 0) on February 19, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the House on February 19, 2008.
Passed in the House (109 to 0) on February 20, 2008, to concur with the Senate-passed version of the bill. [Vote Details and Comments]
Signed by Gov. Jennifer Granholm on February 29, 2008.

Most Recent Comments

1) Re: Patty [by crazycajun on November 27, 2008]

when michigan writes a provision into the law that a person denied further alcohol is completely innocent of all crimes he commits while inebreated, and the bar owners and employees are also completely blameless if (heaven forbid) the drunken sod goes out and kills somebody , THEN i'll believe that they care one way or the other.

if a person is responsible for what he or she does when drunk, then let's hold that person, and that person only, responsible. not the state, and certainly not the bar owners or it's employees. they are certainly not to be forced into being "THEIR BROTHER'S KEEPERS" by laws like this, and by state policies like are in place here.

are restaraunts held responsible when a custome keels over with a heart attack or stroke from eating too much?

NO. why not? it's exactly what you are proposing here.

is the tobacco shop responsible when the customer gets cancer?

NO. why not? it's exactly what you are proposing here.

any time you have to write provisions in the law exempting the bar owner from DOING THE RIGHT THING, then you have a BAD LAW.

Line

2) Patty [by Anonymous Citizen on June 26, 2008]
so we should let the drunk drive off and cause harm to some innocent person? the law is a good law.
Reply

Line

3) And The Ones That Don't Leave [by Anonymous Citizen on May 17, 2007]
will be taken over by jenny chavez, oop's I meant hugo granholm, oop's must be jenny the great.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation