Family wins $21 million in suit

[texas*princess]

Originally posted by Kristin AGD
Unfortunately this is not true. Most cases of this type are settled due to the money, time & reputation. And TGI Friday's the corporation is not being sued, the franchisee that owns them is the one who loses here. I think I read they have about 30 restaurants. No doubt jobs will be cut at the franchise office due to such a loss, and in this economy it might even contribute to the closing of some of their restaurants.

I do see both sides. I can only imagine the pain the families have had to face. And I agree bartenders have the right to refuse service of someone obviously inebriated. I just oppose the idea that any time a tradegy occurs like this, the lawyers go for the restaurants hard. I feel that the restaurants are a scapegoat and the individuals are not getting held accountable for their actions, it is easier to blame the restaurant. That is in most cases, not all. Nothing is ever black or white.

well said.

[bruinaphi]

Lawyers go after deep pockets. Sorry to sound crass but there is no point in suing someone who has no money. Franchises and major corporations are deep pockets. (Just like fraternities and sororities.) That's why they are the ones sued when there is any way to allege liability. They also probably have liability insurance that covers at least a portion of the settlement.

[White_Chocolate]

I still think that the family used their 'family members' in order to make a profit

[jdawn93]

So I know this is a long time after this story was published and has been commented on, but I would like to say most of these replies make me sick. I knew Jamie, one of the two killed in the accident, and I know her family very well. They are/were some of the greatest I have ever met. They are not selfish by receiving so much money because they are doing many great things with it. Because of them and a scholarship they gave me, I can go to college. I don't think that is selfish at all. They know this money will not bring back their loved ones, but at the ceremony for the scholarship recipients, both sets of parents agreed that they were in a way "adopting" us as their children so we could have futures and get great college educations, something that their own children could not do. I know this touched my heart a lot and I hope it would touch others as well, and change your thoughts of this family being selfish to being selfless.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by jdawn93

So I know this is a long time after this story was published and has been commented on, but I would like to say most of these replies make me sick. I knew Jamie, one of the two killed in the accident, and I know her family very well. They are/were some of the greatest I have ever met. They are not selfish by receiving so much money because they are doing many great things with it. Because of them and a scholarship they gave me, I can go to college. I don't think that is selfish at all. They know this money will not bring back their loved ones, but at the ceremony for the scholarship recipients, both sets of parents agreed that they were in a way "adopting" us as their children so we could have futures and get great college educations, something that their own children could not do. I know this touched my heart a lot and I hope it would touch others as well, and change your thoughts of this family being selfish to being selfless.

This is a fantastic story - seriously, I hope you can exhibit this kind of emotion and positive attitude with others as you become an adult. I'm very excited for you and the families of the deceased - this seems like the ultimate example of "making lemonade" as the cliche goes.

However, it's still basically a large straw man.

[Kevin]

I really haven't changed my mind on this. 21 million for a dram shop liability case is beyond the pale.

On a side note, I used smileys way too much 6 years ago.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I really haven't changed my mind on this. 21 million for a dram shop liability case is beyond the pale.

Some states have even eliminated dram shop liability altogether.

I agree that the verdict still seems excessive, and I say that as someone who was almost killed by a repeat-offender drunk driver 2 years ago.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

Some states have even eliminated dram shop liability altogether.

I agree that the verdict still seems excessive, and I say that as someone who was almost killed by a repeat-offender drunk driver 2 years ago.

I'm not sure I agree with eliminating it altogether, but allowing for excessive non-economic damages I think allows the sort of verdicts which cast the entire civil justice system in a bad light. Had this case not involved the death of two people and still had a similar verdict, this'd be right up there with the McDonald's 'hot coffee' case as an example of the so-called evils which all of those so-called tort reformers are working so hard to prevent.

[texas*princess]

I haven't changed my mind either.

[PKpwnage]

I am appalled at the responses in this thread.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by PKpwnage

I am appalled at the responses in this thread.

In what way?

[PKpwnage]

As a cousin of Cory Stauble, I feel quite hurt by the responses in this thread. I was actually in Kentucky, visiting family, when this happened, so I was able to hear and experience the whole story.

TGI Friday's was clearly at fault here, because they were serving drinks to Eberenz even when he was showing clear signs of intoxication and was not fit to go out at all.

Bash the Staubles and Parsleys all you want for getting $21 million, but that's not the point of why they sued for money. Because this was one of the largest settlements in the history of these types of cases, this case also has the most impact on society and helps to do a lot in order to better the community as a whole. This wasn't just some incident where someone got killed and the other party settled. This actually changed how people ran a business, and how other people looked at drunk driving.

You may also be interested to know that a lot of the money (if not most) has been put toward the Jamie & Cory Foundation.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by PKpwnage

As a cousin of Cory Stauble, I feel quite hurt by the responses in this thread. I was actually in Kentucky, visiting family, when this happened, so I was able to hear and experience the whole story.

TGI Friday's was clearly at fault here, because they were serving drinks to Eberenz even when he was showing clear signs of intoxication and was not fit to go out at all.

Bash the Staubles and Parsleys all you want for getting $21 million, but that's not the point of why they sued for money. Because this was one of the largest settlements in the history of these types of cases, this case also has the most impact on society and helps to do a lot in order to better the community as a whole. This wasn't just some incident where someone got killed and the other party settled. This actually changed how people ran a business, and how other people looked at drunk driving.

You may also be interested to know that a lot of the money (if not most) has been put toward the Jamie & Cory Foundation.

I'm sorry for the loss of your cousin, but the bolded statement is incredibly insensitive. There's never a situation where it's "just some incident where someone got killed."

I understand your point, but you don't need to make it by minimizing the deaths of other individuals, simply because those families chose to settle.

[PKpwnage]

I was trying to make a point that this case was of much greater magnitude than most other drunk driving cases.

[Educatingblue]

Originally Posted by texas*princess

sorry to sound really mean and insensitive, but this makes me sick.

If these family members really wanted to "make a difference in the community" like they said they "owed" to their deceased family members, they wouldn't have taken a single cent from TGI. Fridays.

If they were really concerned with "making a difference in the community" they would have just settled for the things the restaurant owners said they would put in place.

("The company agreed to post signs at the restaurant noting its right to refuse alcohol to impaired people and offering free cab rides; to hold quarterly staff meetings on how to monitor customers' drinking; to put the names of bar patrons on order tickets whenever possible; and to modify its employee application form to inquire about alcohol-related convictions. The firm also agreed at its Lime Kiln Lane restaurant to remove anyone suspected of illegal gambling and to unsubscribe to a horse-racing television network.")

Agreed. I really do not think the restaurant should be held financially responsible. Educational programs regarding alcohol or DD would be more appropriate IMO.