Mom sues Coors over son's death in accident

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Krizoitz, Apr 18, 2004.

  1. macrumors 6502a

    Krizoitz

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2003
    Location:
    Seattle, WA USA
    #1
  2. macrumors 6502a

    Sparky's

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2004
    #2
    Keeping on track though, this sounds like the woman who tried to sue McDonalds for burning herself with hot coffee, only this time they want to sue Juan Valdez for growing the coffee beans. I think the judge should toss this one and the mom ought to go after the party throwers.
    I agree "alcohol" companies in general should take a more responsible approach to marketing. I am also surprised to see a reprisal of "Hard Liquor" ads on National TV. Does "Madison Avenue" (I use the term to describe the marketing agencies where ever they are) think its time to push booze now instead of drugs or are they just succumbing to an overwhelming influx of abusers.
     
  3. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #3
    1st off the legal drinking age is still 21 so don't blame the beer companies for what they are doing as they are doing nothing wrong. While I think the 21 age really isn't doing anything but telling more kids to break the law and drink. Everyone went to school and knows that you can tell kids all you want not to drink but they still will so I don't understand why people are so upset. The parents know their kids drink or really aren't looking out for their kids to see what they are really doing. The fact is that while you can fight for your country at 18 and smoke and vote why can't you drink. Until everything is either 21 or 18, or until a reasonable explanation is given as to why its bad kids will continue to drink and it will only get worse.
     
  4. macrumors P6

    wdlove

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2002
    #4
    The death of her son is a very sad and tragic accident. This is just another example of our litigious society. No one wants to take resposibility for their own actions. He was not forced to drink, it could have been any type of alcoholic product that he drank. His mistake was to then drink and drive, no one in the 21st century is unaware of the results of that cause and effect. Hopefully the judge will through out the case. This cases are only brought to make lawyers richer. They are the ones that really profit. :( :eek:
     
  5. macrumors 68040

    MongoTheGeek

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2003
    Location:
    Its not so much where you are as when you are.
    #5
    Sue the lawyers.

    I am seriously getting tired of things like this. Reading this story makes me want to go drink more Coors. Its pretty wretched beer and probably has detectable amounts of plutonium in it but they don't deserve this.

    I say we get a class action lawsuit against all lawyers.
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #6
    better sue the state

    after all, the state built the road and placed the utility pole.

    and sue the residents of the state, as they paid for these improvements.



    it is not the lawyer's fault there is a suit. it is the worthless mother who thinks that money will bring her child back. maybe we should sue her for raising a kid who drinks and drives, especially whilst underage.
     
  7. macrumors 68020

    flyfish29

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    New HAMpshire
    #7
    I agree...how tragic...but her son made the mistake and she along with others unfortuantely need to deal with it. Coors didn't make him drive drunk, didn't provide the beverages, didn't give him the keys, didn't make him drive 90! Even if Coors had sponsored the event and let under age children in there might be a case, but in fact it is still her son who did wrong here.

    I see this same type of responsibility "shift" going on with the third graders in my classroom. The parents want to do everything but blame the ones really responsible.

    For example- I have an assignment notebook that goes home with every 3rd grader with their homework. Their parents are supposed to sign it if they complete the assignments (most of the assignments are not things they turn in, but reading for 20 minutes, etc.) Hundreds of times the following morning I would be walking past student's desks checking their assignment notebook and say something like" Great job of doing your homework!" well, some (most I think) of them were actually honest and said they didn't do all their homework. I asked them how they got it signed then...they replied. "my mom didn't want me to get into trouble." Uggg. Luckily most were honest and could tell what the right thing to do was, but I imagine as they got older they started following in their parents footsteps!
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    Macmaniac

    #8
    There are a few problems I have with this case, one parents think their kids are too good to be drinking under age. First of all as a 17 year old I know way too many people my age who drink behind their parents back, what's even worse is that they have been caught before, but the parents don't make a big about it, and their off drinking at the next party. They seem to believe their son or daughter is too good be drinking and this was only a slip up..... If parents paid more attention to what their kids were doing there would be fewer kids drinking ad driving. Also if a parent catches their kid drinking take away their car for a month! Take the keys and there is not a bloody thing they can do about it, they can't drive by themselves to parties and parents will be able to know who they are with if the kid has to get a ride with a friend.
    I believe parents need to be less cutsie with their kids about drinking and open a can of whoop a$$.
     
  9. macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #9
    For what its worth, the woman who sued mcdonalds probably had a legitimate case. McDonalds was sued several times and decided that it was cheaper to keep the coffee super hot and pay the damages, then to have to replace the coffee. McDonalds had multiple oppurtunities to lower the coffee temperature and never did. that woman had like 3rd degree burns on her inner thighs. I think McDonalds deserved that lawsuit. Their actions had a direct impact on what happened to that woman. Coffee is supposed to be hot, its not supposed to burn the skin off of someone through their clothes.

    In this case though, it sounds more like passing the responsibility, or lawyers trying to go after the deepest pockets.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    baby duck monge

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    #10
    this sort of lawsuit is really getting quite out of hand. sickening what some people will do to make a buck... and the fact that people like this ruin so much stuff for the rest of us -- don't even get me started.

    people make their own mistakes. stop trying to shift the blame. makes me just want to go live all alone on an island somewhere so i wouldn't have to hear about BS like this. well, i would want to bring my girlie. and maybe some of out relatives. but that would be it.
     
  11. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    Don't forget something to drink, you might want to bring beer with you, you might get thirsty :rolleyes:
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    musicpyrite

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Location:
    Cape Cod
    #12
    Thats what my father says to me, although not about drinking, drugs, or sex.
     
  13. macrumors 68000

    baby duck monge

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Location:
    Memphis, TN
    #13
    meh. who needs to bring it with you. i would just distill my own, of course. :D :D :D :cool:
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    flyfish29

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2003
    Location:
    New HAMpshire
    #14
    Nice statement...just goes to show it is parents who screw up kids...not kids.
     
  15. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #15
    First off an attorney does not have to take the case. As long as attorneys get 30 to 40% of an award, then we will see crap like this.

    What some may have missed is that her son did not hold a "valid" drivers license. Wonder if a prior DWI was involved?
     
  16. macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #16
    if anything, the attorney's take will make LESS people bring suit, since they do not keep all their winnings.

    also, if you know anything about law, which it seems you don't, the attorney could be working on an hourly rate, and receive NONE of the winnings (besides his hourly fee). what your are thinking of is called Contingency. Not all lawyers work for a contingency fee.

    not to mention, who was it who brought suit again? it is very illegal for a lawyer to contact that mother and offer his services, even if he watched her son die. The plaintiff comes to the lawyer, not vice-versa.
     
  17. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #17
    I think i do know a thing or two about the law. I know about assumptions, but the standard here in the DC area in damage award suits (you know what those are) is that such suits are generally on contingency.

    Also remember the law firm stands to win if they can make the Coors portion a class action suit. Doubtful as the suit is already filed, but starnger things have happened.

    Yes, I understand that the lawyer could be working on an hourly basis. More than likely it is probably something in-between. A retainer to cover their basic expenses, and a part of any award made. Two key facts here are that the mother is suing both Coors and the former girlfriend. The clue is that there are unspecified damages. This was brought as a civil suit, not as a criminal suit.

    While it may be illegal for an attorney to contact a plaintiff, it does happen. Ask anyone that suffered a loss in an airline crash. Too many loopholes to allow this sort of thing. Also most Bar Associations are unwilling in many cases of acting on their own, unless there was a much more serious breach of ethics.

    Sorry if your feathers are ruffled. The motives on all sides are called into question when suits like these are made. I will say that there some good lawyers out there. But just a few bad apples will spoil the whole bunch.

    Like I said it is telling that the guy did not have a valid drivers license.

    Moving Off Topic a bit:

    In our area Toyota lost a large suit to a gentleman that successfully argued that Toyota failed to inform passengers in a car that seat-belts and airbags are not effective if you have the seat-back reclined. Well, duh!

    The other thing is these non-disclosure settlements. If a suit has been filed, then any settlement after that time should be a matter of public record.

    We need sincere tort reform. Any maybe an independent body to decide complaints about the practices of attorneys.
     
  18. Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #18
    I'm going with my opinion that here's another case of someone looking to point the finger, rather than assume responsibility. How pathetic. :rolleyes:
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Dippo

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2003
    Location:
    Charlotte, NC
    #19

    Yea, well at least they are not suing the doctors this time...


    It's just lawyers trying to make money by suing each other!
    OUTLAW LAWYERS! :D
     
  20. macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #20
    You have a point. We are no longer a nation that is willing to take responsibility for their own actions. Taking hot coffee through a drive-thru, riding with a seat-back reclined, drinking and driving without a valid drivers license, or having children without the means to support them.

    In my previous post I mentioned "sincere tort reform". I do believe that companies should be held responsible actions that they knew could cause harm or loss of life, as long as common sense is used with use of the product. A case in point is Ford's Pinto gas tank fiasco.

    I will also point a finger that this case may have been better made if it were a criminal suit, rather than a civil suit. Civil suits are generally about money. Otherwise they would be filed for attorneys costs and a punitive damage of $1 and NOT sealed so that we can see that they admitted wrong doing.
     
  21. Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #21
    Pretty much yeah. It's sad that the laws & liberties that protect us are also the same ones that get taken advantage of like this. What if this kid was hopped up on narcotics, rather than booze? Would mom be going after his supplier? :rolleyes:
     
  22. Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #22
    It's so true. I've said it plenty of times in the past, but society has conditioned people to take the "victim" stance in a situation, rather than wholly accept that they are the ones who did the wrong. As I stated in my above post, what would mom have done if this kid was stoned out of his head & crashed the car? Something tells me she wouldn't have sought out who the drug dealers were in that case, and filed a suit against them for contributing to her son's demise.

    I also agree with the idea of Civil suits being about money. I don't believe, for a second, that this case is about how Coors "failed" to prevent underage drinking, but more a personal issue (and I can understand with the loss of a child, but damn!) with this kid's mom.

    Again, pathetic she cannot admit HER SON SCREWED UP. :rolleyes:
     
  23. macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #23
    i don't think that losing in court forces someone to admit fault.

    also- punitive damages are to punish. punitive damages should be high, and compensatory damages low, if the plaintiff is attempting to right a wrong, and not just make money. if punitive damages were $1, it would never make sense to stop the litigious practice, hence high punitive damages, which make a repeat situation monetarily a bad idea. since this is civil suit, you are not in jeopardy of your liberty, just your property, as no imprisonment is possible.


    but- i agree with tort reform. litigation should be aimed to stop a dangerous situation from occurring again. it should not be used to fill your retirement fund. if a doctor is practicing medicine he/she is not licensed to practice, sue. if the doctor makes a small mistake, and you are little worse for wear, don't sue. do you get millions when the McD's person messes up your order?

    and, should coors be sued b/c some kid drank their beer, drove drunk, drove recklessly, sped, and killed himself? no.

    should a gun company be sued b/c someone used a gun manufactured by them to kill someone? no.
     
  24. macrumors 68020

    idkew

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2001
    Location:
    where the concrete to dirt ratio is better
    #24
    what says her son did not do this on purpose? young males are the most likely to commit suicide.
     
  25. Moderator emeritus

    eyelikeart

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2001
    Location:
    Metairie, LA
    #25
    That's my point, it's just ridiculous to hold the beer company liable for the actions her son made. He made the choice to drink, and he was underage at that. He knew it was "illegal," just like all of us did when we drank while underage. I'm also quite certain he wasn't falsely enchanted by a lifestyle of youth, sex, & beauty by what Coors portrays in it's advertising.
     

Share This Page