Family wins $21 million in suit

White_Chocolate · #1 06-20-2003, 10:10 AM

DUI suit settled for $21 million
Man in crash that killed 3 drank at T.G.I. Friday's
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By GREGORY A. HALL
ghall@courier-journal.com
The Courier-Journal

Andrew Cory Stauble and Jamie Parsley had been dating for nearly a year when they died in the crash.

The company that owns the T.G.I. Friday's restaurant that served alcohol to a Prospect man before he drove his truck into a car carrying two 16-year-old sweethearts — killing all three — has paid $21 million to settle a lawsuit filed by the teens' parents.

The agreement is one of the largest reported settlements or damage awards in the country in cases against establishments that serve d alcohol to customers who later injured or killed others.

In addition to the money, Ohio Valley Bistros Inc., which operates the Lime Kiln Lane restaurant where Mark Eberenz was drinking over the course of eight hours, agreed to other stipulations dealing with alcohol and illegal gambling at that operation.

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.

In a statement released yesterday, Ohio Valley Bistro s said, "The accident was a terrible tragedy for the victims and their families, and our thoughts and prayers are with them as they grieve for their loved ones.

"The settlement of this case was a business decision and should not be construed as an admission of responsibility on behalf of our restaurant or its employees. We have been and will continue to be a good corporate citizen that adheres the highest standards and practices."

Unlike many settlements in civil cases, confidentiality is not part of the deal — a condition set by the parents of the teenagers, Andrew Cory Stauble and Jamie Parsley.

In an interview, all four parents said they want the settlement to be a public notice to restaurants and bars that they must take steps to ensure they don't let drunk customers drive.

"We want to make the community a better place for anyone, to save a life," said Jamie's father, Archie Parsley . "I don't think we want anyone to have to go through what we've been through during the last 11 months. Pure hell."

A fiery crash

On July 9, 2002, a pickup truck driven by Eberenz, 42, a home builder, crossed the median of the Snyder Freeway, striking a southbound car driven by Jamie Parsley; Cory Stauble was her passenger. Both vehicles burned, and all three died at the scene.

Eberenz's blood-alcohol level was 0 .254 percent , more than three times the standard of 0 .08 at which Kentucky law presumes a driver to be drunk.

"We just feel that we owe it to the memory of the kids to make some difference in the community," said Cory's mother, Karla Stauble . "Our kids were going to do great things."

The teens, who had been dating for almost a year, had numerous accomplishments.

Jamie had a 4.2 grade-point average, according to her last report card from Kentucky Country Day School . Cory, who would be entering his senior year at Manual High School, was posthumously inducted into the National Honor Society. Both were active in sports and Cory was ranked sixth in the nation as a fencer in his age group.

According to their parents, they even shared likes and dislikes: both aspired to be engineers and neither liked mashed potatoes.

"They were just hooked on that first love kind of thing," Bob Stauble said. "They were just really having a ball."

The parents said they plan to use proceeds from the settlement to establish a foundation to honor their children by promoting causes, such as possibly giving scholarships to a child of an alcoholic parent.

"Maybe this is a gift from them, a safer, better place," Kay Parsley said.

The estates filed separate suits last year in Jefferson Circuit Court against Ohio Valley Bistros of Mariemont, Ohio, which owns another T.G.I. Friday's location off Hurstbourne Parkway and a total of about 30 restaurants in Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia, according to The Cincinnati Enquirer. The estates also filed suit against Eberenz's estate.

The lawsuits were combined, as were additional claims against Scotty's, a Middletown restaurant and bar where Eberenz had a beer after leaving Friday's.

As part of the deal, Scotty's agreed to pay $650,000, to be split equally among the Parsley and Stauble estates and Eberenz's surviving daughter, who filed a wrongful death claim. Scotty's owner, Roy Scott, declined to comment on the settlement yesterday but said of the fatal crash: "I'm sorry that it happened."

The settlement says, i n standard language, that the money paid by the insurers of Ohio Valley Bistros and Scotty's is not an admission of guilt, and any liability or fault is denied.

But the teens' parents said they believe the money involved speaks volumes.

"The amount of the settlement absolutely is represented by the awful proof against the defense," said Bob Stauble, who is an attorney.

In addition to the monetary and alcohol policy sections of the settlement, Ohio Valley Bistros agreed to deal with the possibility of illegal gambling occurring at its restaurant. "It really saddened us to see that that was going on in an open manner," Bob Stauble said in an interview. "But it also gave us some insight as to why a person ... would stay somewhere drinking for 8 1/2 hours."

At least one Friday's employee said in a deposition that he knew Eberenz and others routinely gambled on televised horse races while at the restaurant. Other employees said in depositions they suspected it, but never saw it.

Servers also testified in depositions that they couldn't be sure how many drinks Eberenz had during his stay. The parents and their attorneys requested that the changes apply to all of Bistros' Friday's locations.

Judge F. Kenneth Conliffe said Monday during a hearing that mediation documents presented to him supported the company's position that the settlement they agreed to stipulates the changes were only for the Lime Kiln location.

In court, the Parsleys' attorney, Gary Hillerich, said he couldn't understand why Ohio Valley would agree "to cease illegal gambling at Lime Kiln" but not at other locations, calling it "absolutely incredulous from a public relations standpoint if nothing else."

Attorney Tom Conway represented the Staubles.

The settlement is "not against serving alcohol," Karla Stauble said. "It's serving it responsibly. Keeping track of how many drinks patrons have in a restaurant."

A company spokesman said at the time the lawsuits were filed that employees had acted properly in dealing with Eberenz that night.

According to a timeline of events created by the plaintiffs' attorneys based on evidence and depositions, Eberenz left home shortly after 9 a.m. on July 9 and arrived at Friday's around noon. Witnesses place him at the restaurant until around 8:30 p.m.

In answers to questions from the plaintiffs' attorneys in the case, Ohio Valley produced receipts for Eberenz showing he purchased six glasses of wine. Another interrogatory said restaurant officials believe someone else purchased a glass of wine for Eberenz.

Servers said they couldn't be sure how many drinks Eberenz had consumed.

Between 8:35 p.m. and 9:05 p.m., Eberenz called Deborah Creech, whose home Eberenz had been helping build, on his cell phone, according to a deposition of Creech. S he told attorneys in the deposition that she was upset with Eberenz at the time of his death because he had been paid about $167,000 for contractors but the contractors weren't being paid. She also said he was drinking too much.

"When he was talking to me on the phone, he said, ` W ait a minute Debbie. I'm off the road. I'm off the road.' "

She said she "begged the man to pull over."

About 9 p.m. Eberenz went to Scotty's. A friend told police that Eberenz ate half of a stromboli, but refused an offer from the friend of a ride home. Eberenz got two beers but only drank one, John J. Davis Jr., a friend, told police.

Eberenz left Scotty's about 10:15 and the fatal crash occurred at 10:39 p.m.

Gambling allegations

A portion of the questioning of restaurant employees and patrons dealt with the gambling allegations.

Bartender Michael Englert said in his deposition he would see a man named Thomas G. Cozzolino booking bets on horse races for bar patrons. "It tends to be kind of obvious what they're doing right there," Englert said.

In January 2001, police arrested Cozzolino, who said he later became a golfing and lunch buddy of Eberenz's, after he was observed taking a bet over the phone at the Lime Kiln Friday's, according to the arrest citation. The charges in Jefferson District Court were dismissed after Cozzolino performed community service.

When asked in a deposition in connection with the Eberenz case if he was a bookmaker, Cozzolino responded: "I plead the Fifth Amendment. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that the truthful answer might tend to incriminate me."

Cozzolino said betting occurred at Friday's, but not every day , and Eberenz was not betting on July 9. He said that people including Eberenz would put up a sum between $10 and $50 and each pick a horse , and that the winner would take the pot.

The resolution of the civil case isn't the conclusion of the matter.

State alcoholic beverage control regulators and the Jefferson County c ommonwealth's a ttorney could look into the case and criminal charges could be filed, spokesmen for both agencies said.

"We're still reviewing the intricacies of the case," Jeff Derouen, a spokesman for the commonwealth's attorney's office, said last week.

Meanwhile, the two sets of parents said they have become closer in supporting one another since the fatalities.

"We're joined at the hip," Kay Parsley said. "... Thank God for the Staubles."

"Vice versa," Bob Stauble replied.

The Staubles joined the Parsleys at what would have been Jamie's Kentucky Country Day graduation this month, where Jamie posthumously received an award for doing the most to bring the senior class together.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

my question would be 'why so much money?'
especially when the man was at a 2 different establishments
over the course of 8 hours
$21 million only proves how greedy Americans have become
And how to place the blame on others

MoxieGrrl · #2 06-20-2003, 11:21 AM

Agreed. 21 million isn't going to bring your family member back. Pain and suffering over your loss cannot be given a monetary value and to think that it can is just fooling yourself. Shame on these people.

LeslieAGD · #3 06-20-2003, 11:25 AM

This blows me away! This is ridiculous!!

texas*princess · #4 06-20-2003, 11:38 AM

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.")

And the restaurant isn't the only person to blame.. in case the family members forgot, the guy who was drinking & driving (and actually killed the 16-yr-olds)was the one who chose to drink in the first place. That guy's family probably wasn't even touched in the lawsuit because they probably didn't have anything close to 21 million

LeslieAGD · #5 06-20-2003, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by texas*princess
in case the family members forgot, the guy who was drinking & driving was the one who chose to drink in the first place. That guy's family probably wasn't even touched in the lawsuit because they probably didn't have anything close to 21 million

That's exactly why this is so shameful. They're blaming the middle man just because they see dollar signs.

Kevin · #6 06-20-2003, 11:58 AM

Well, on the family's side of the coin.. I'm not sure if what my waiter told me was true or not.. However, I was ordering a Long Island Ice Tea. They have their premium version of that. They claim that it has the maximum amount of alcohol allowable in a single drink according to state law. Serving this to the driver may be a little irresponsible.

Sure, I ordered it

White_Chocolate · #7 06-20-2003, 12:34 PM

yes, but I know how people would react to them saying 'no, i'm sorry i cannot serve you another beer'
some people would get pissed, ask to see a manager or supervisor, curse the restaurant out

you have to think about it

plus, people are always screaming their rights
isn't it your right to get another drink against the orders of a server or bartendar

Kristin AGD · #8 06-20-2003, 12:37 PM

National restaurant chains like TGI Friday's have excellent training programs regarding the serving of alcohol. The families are not sending the restaurant industry a message. The topic is one that restaurant trade magazines study in depth. No one wants to be the bartender that served a killer.

We need to hold people responsible for their behaviors and quit trying to place blame.

The man drank too much at Friday's, went to another bar drank some more, refused a ride home. Then he killed two people. He did it.

The restaurants train their people and some servers have to undergo state certification as well. (Texas has the TABC certification to serve). They are doing all they can, but sometimes it isn't enough to stop someone from leaving. I think we all know someone who can drink & drink, and still come across sober. The people who drink & drive need to be punished. We can't bring this guy back to punish him. But the next person who lives through the experience needs to be punished severely.

**now jumping down from my soapbox, thanks!**

bruinaphi · #9 06-20-2003, 12:45 PM

Having lost someone dear to me in a senseless tragedy all I can say is that I hope they use the money to fund programs to stop drunk driving and educate others to prevent other senseless tragedies.

In the case of my friend there was no money to be found in a wrongful death suit or other tort suit but we started a foundation to prevent the kind of senseless violence that caused her death.

Everyone does what they can. Do not judge the families of these teens until you see what they do with the money.

Jill1228 · #10 06-20-2003, 12:56 PM

This is the MAIN reason why servers and bartenders in the state of Washington have to take classes and be licenced. We have to take a liquor class (cost $40)...a 3 hour class

I wouldn't pass judgement on the family either.

If the person rolled up into the place drunk, he should NOT have been served...I don't give a rat's ass how much he rose hell and carried on!

Kristin AGD · #11 06-20-2003, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by White_Chocolate
According to a timeline of events created by the plaintiffs' attorneys based on evidence and depositions, Eberenz left home shortly after 9 a.m. on July 9 and arrived at Friday's around noon. Witnesses place him at the restaurant until around 8:30 p.m.

In answers to questions from the plaintiffs' attorneys in the case, Ohio Valley produced receipts for Eberenz showing he purchased six glasses of wine. Another interrogatory said restaurant officials believe someone else purchased a glass of wine for Eberenz.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't judge the family either. The system allows them to do this. And given their pain & loss I am sure they are not the most objective.

However all of my family has spent sometime tending bar, and most of us at a Friday's, 7 glasses of wine in that amount of time could be considered reasonable. When a guest crosses the line it is hard for a bartender to tell, the person drinking has to take some responsibility. Not all people have the same tolerance.

And yes, bartenders can refuse to serve. I believe that is the case in almost all states.

PS. I know my sister calls the police anonymously if she tells someone not to drive and they do it anyway. But I think that is her conscience & moral obligation. The real culprit is the person who walks out the door and gets behind the wheel.

texas*princess · #12 06-20-2003, 03:49 PM

One of my best friends in high school lost an entire branch of her family tree one Sunday morning. She lost her aunt, uncle, and three cousins in a car accident that killed them all. The drunk driver however, remained alive. Her family didn't sue anyone, but the drunk driver did get a lot of jail time.

I just think it's crazy that the family in the news story sued for all that money for something that wasn't the restaurants fault.

Peaches-n-Cream · #13 06-20-2003, 04:08 PM

It is very sad. There was a lawsuit involving a bar serving underaged people who ultimately died in a drunk driving accident. I think that the family was originally awarded $20 million. This was a small family owned business that didn't have that much money so the amount was lowered. The bar was closed as a result which was what the family hoped.

I can understand the family suing. If my family was killed by a drunk driver, I would be angry and devastated. I would want to hold someone responsible. Since the driver died, no one can or will go to jail. Their only option for justice is a civil lawsuit. I really don't have a problem with this form of justice. I have a huge problem with the bartenders serving someone who was clearly drunk.

bruinaphi · #14 06-20-2003, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by texas*princess
I just think it's crazy that the family in the news story sued for all that money for something that wasn't the restaurants fault.

We can spend all day debating whether the restaurant had any fault, but most states have precedent for restaurants having liability in these situations. The idea is for bartenders to act responsibly. Sometimes it is hard for bartenders to tell how inebriated someone is, but I know plenty of people who tend bar who have refused to serve people and made sure they weren't driving. That is the behavior that most of society wants to encourage. It's clear that Friday's thought they had some sort of liability or they wouldn't have settled. I am surprised that they didn't make the settlement confidential. The family must have had a strong case for Friday's to settle.

Every family deals with their pain differently. I've watched people decide the criminal justice system is sufficient while others wage crusaides to make sure that others don't wind up in the same position. I don't think anyone is right or wrong. Even if you've been through it your pain is different than your parents', siblings' or friends'. Its just a bad situation.

Kristin AGD · #15 06-20-2003, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by lauradav
It's clear that Friday's thought they had some sort of liability or they wouldn't have settled.

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.