More bad news for south carolina

When I read the article, it seemed to me that the club did everything right. They called their contacted drunk transit contractor, a driver and vehicle showed up, Lust employees loaded the drunk into the vehicle, the vehicle, driver, and drunk left the club and parking lot. At this point, Lust, other than selling the guy too much alcohol, had fulfilled all righteousness.

At this point it went south. The transit contractor's driver left the guy not at his home, but at his car at a whole different place. Could the driver claim he didn't know the guy was drunk? Not really, since that is the only reason he would have been called, duh. In my view, the only liability, other than the drunk's, lies with the transit customer, unless some smarmy, unprincipled lawyer convinces the jury that Lust is Satan's agent on Earth and must be punished.

Any thoughts from the legal eagles on this site?

Sorry, that should have been "transit contractor".

Sounds to me like they should be suing the company that dropped him off at his car instead of his house if someone was to be sued.

They are. The plaintiffs' lawyers are going after anyone with any (a) involvement, (b) deep pockets and/or (c) a possible inclination to settle to avoid bad publicity. Lust is the only one meeting all three of these criteria, justly or unjustly.

In states with so-called "DRAM Shop Laws", bars can be held liable if a guy leaves the bar drunk and then kills someone. Fortunately, more enlightened states either don't have these laws or even go so far as to specifically exempt bars from liability under certain circumstances. From what I have read, South Carolina laws are silent on the issue. So with that said, good luck to the plaintiff lawyer in trying to convince a jury that the bar should be held liable, especially given the steps that it took to get him home safely.