PDA

View Full Version : Jury awards $135 million to family after drunken NFL fan crashes into them


SCTrojan
02-05-2005, 07:28 AM
From the Washington Post today:

Interesting take on alcohol consumption at sporting events. Wanted to see what everyone thought. I've tailgated in the parking lot many times. There were times that I drank more than I should have, but I don't think anyone else should be held accountable for my actions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64952-2005Feb4.html


Why Sports Should Sober Up

By James Mosher
Saturday, February 5, 2005; Page A19

Sports weekends go hand in hand with beer drinking, and this, of course, is about the biggest sports weekend of them all. But this Super Bowl Sunday, the people and the companies that promote the strong ties between sports and drinking might have a little something else on their minds: a jury verdict handed down in New Jersey last month intended to send a message about football's "culture of intoxication." The message? Enough is enough.

The jury awarded $135 million to a girl and her mother who were severely injured in a 1999 car crash involving a drunken driver who had just left a New York Giants game. The jury found that the stadium concessionaire, Aramark, irresponsibly sold beer to the man who caused the crash. Testimony indicated Aramark vendors ignored the company's policy and New Jersey law by selling six beers during halftime to Daniel Lanzaro, who was visibly drunk and whose speech was slurred. Lanzaro's pickup truck slammed into a car in which Fazila Verni and her then-2-year-old daughter, Antonia, were passengers. Antonia was paralyzed from the neck down.

While the trial focused only on Aramark and the situation at Giants Stadium, the problem is much bigger than one stadium or even one sport. And it's not just about professional sports; heavy drinking around college athletic events is a big problem, too.

Beer vendors at stadiums are a good place to start. Aramark is one of the largest alcohol and food concessionaires in the country, providing various services at more than 230 sports arenas, concert halls and other entertainment venues in the United States. Testimony at the trial showed that Aramark routinely violated the two-beer limit set by the NFL. We know that happened at Giants Stadium; what about other Aramark venues? And who is enforcing these limits?

While the plaintiffs' side settled its claims against the NFL, the Giants and Giants Stadium before the trial, this jury award should be a wake-up call for professional sports leagues, teams, stadiums and colleges. Their alcohol policies and practices could easily lead to further tragedies and large jury awards. For example, many stadiums open their parking lots for tailgating parties early in the morning on game days. Heavy drinking there goes unchecked, which can result in a stadium where many of the fans are drunken and rowdy even before kickoff. This is a recipe for violence at games and drunken driving afterward.

In fact, some major colleges already are revamping their tailgating policies. Ohio State University banned open containers at tailgate parties before Buckeye football games. The action has drawn fire from alumni groups and even Ohio lawmakers, but it has also brought back fans who were put off by the drunken atmosphere of the games, and it has helped stop the rioting that often accompanied football victories.

While the NFL won't yet say whether it plans to change its beer-service policies, the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which manages Giants Stadium and the Meadowlands sports complex, says it will increase oversight of alcohol consumption before, during and after games on both sides of the turnstiles. At Pittsburgh's Heinz Stadium, beer sales abruptly ended before the start of the third quarter at the Pittsburgh Steelers-New England Patriots AFC championship game -- played a few days after the New Jersey jury verdict -- even though NFL policy allows sales until the end of the third quarter. Coincidence? Aramark is the concessionaire at Heinz Stadium.

A few basic reforms could help end the devastating consequences of combining sports and intoxication. Professional sports leagues, teams, stadiums, colleges and vendors need to review and reform their alcohol policies. Limiting tailgate parties, prohibiting open containers, restricting the amount of alcohol sold to a single customer, training staff to recognize signs of intoxication, and monitoring staff and customer behavior are among the reforms needed. Some colleges ban alcohol altogether at sporting events. Why should college football be saturated with beer advertising and drunken behavior? Ohio State provides a sensible approach to the problem.

Enforcement is the key. A vendor would ensure the two-drink limit was observed and refuse sales to minors and intoxicated fans, if the rules were strictly enforced and violations resulted in suspension or revocation of its franchise agreement and state liquor license. The NFL and its teams should work closely with vendors and law enforcement agencies to ensure internal rules and relevant state and local laws are followed to protect public safety.

Beer sales and advertising contracts at sporting events provide much revenue for everybody: Beer companies, vendors, teams, the NFL and the colleges all get a cut. But now, with this jury verdict, there's an economic incentive to do the right thing, obey the law and protect the public. Let's hope the leaders in the sports industry and universities hear the jury's message.

Phobia
02-05-2005, 08:24 AM
Stupid. The stupidity has to cease someday.

morphius
02-05-2005, 09:05 AM
Stupid. The stupidity has to cease someday.
One would hope.

RedNFeisty
02-05-2005, 10:18 AM
If a person is in your home, gets drunk and you let that person leave, if that person is in an accident due to intoxication from beverages served at your residence, then in essence the accident is your fault. That is what the law in Kansas says. I don't agree with it, but it is the law. Why should it be different for arena's or stadiums? Not to mention a little girl was paralyzed at the age of two. I think that it should be the persons responsibility and if he can not pay then let him serve time. The family deserves compensation, just not sure that is should have been from a concession stand.

el borracho
02-05-2005, 10:38 AM
I have friends from England who lived here in the states for a few years. The difference between living in England and living in America according to them: "If you live in America long enough, you are going to need a lawyer."

This is seriously one of the reasons I will be living out of the country in a few years. I don't want my future children to grow up surrounded and influenced by this sue-happy mentality.

Frazod
02-05-2005, 10:42 AM
So when is the wake being held?

For PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. :#

I don't know who's worse - the f#cking lawyers who think this shit up or the imbeciles they dupe into buying into it.

:shake:

JohnnyV13
02-05-2005, 11:03 AM
Frazod,

How, exactly, did a mother and child fail in terms of "personal responsibility" when a drunk driver slams into them? What should a "personally responsible" person do, sit at home 24/7? Or should "personal responsibility" dictate they invent a 'drunk driver' detector so that they could avoid the risk?

All you are doing is parroting Rush Limbaugh's credo whenever you see a big jury award. In many products cases were stupid plaintiffs get enormous money, such a comment might make sense. But, in this case, it doesn't. Bitching about the size of the award is reasonable. Complaining the victims lacked "personal responsibility" in this case is blatantly stupid.

Should the mother have said, "Gosh, my 2 year old will live her entire life paralyzed. Too bad, I guess I better suck it up?"

The Jury award is huge and is likely excessive, but we don't know that company's revenue. PUnitive damage awards are designed to deter outrageous conduct by corporations to change their behavior. If the company has, say 500-600 million in annual revenue, this isn't so outlandish. If Armatak only holds the concession for Giants Stadium, this is out of wack.

Winning the award is one thing. Actually collecting it is another matter. Often the jury will award huge verdicts that cannot be collected (such as sending the corporation into Chapter 11) and the parties settle for a lesser amount (but, that settlement never hits the news).

Frazod
02-05-2005, 11:13 AM
Frazod,

How, exactly, did a mother and child fail in terms of "personal responsibility" when a drunk driver slams into them? What should a "personally responsible" person do, sit at home 24/7? Or should "personal responsibility" dictate they invent a 'drunk driver' detector so that they could avoid the risk?

All you are doing is parroting Rush Limbaugh's credo whenever you see a big jury award. In many products cases were stupid plaintiffs get enormous money, such a comment might make sense. But, in this case, it doesn't. Bitching about the size of the award is reasonable. Complaining the victims here lacked "personal responsibility" in this case is blatantly stupid.

Should the mother have said, "Gosh, my 2 year old will live her entire life paralyzed. Too bad, I guess I better suck it up?"

The Jury award is huge and is likely excessive, but we don't know that company's revenue. PUnitive damage awards are designed to deter outrageous conduct by corporations to change their behavior. If the company has, say 500-600 million in annual revenue, this isn't so outlandish. If Armatak only holds the concession for Giants Stadium, this is out of wack.

Winning the award is one thing. Actually collecting it is another matter. Often the jury will award huge verdicts that cannot be collected (such as sending the corporation into Chapter 11) and the parties settle for a lesser amount (but, that settlement never hits the news).

The personal responsiblity in question is the drunk's, not the mother's. (And that should be perfectly obvious - perhaps you've been drinking.) Take it out of the asshole drunk driver's hide. He did the drinking, the driving, and the injuring. The responsibilty IS HIS.

And yes, I know the corporation will have more money than the driver. So does the lawyer, which is the whole reason behind suing the corporation in the first place. The lawyer will likely get a third of that $135 mil, or whatever amount is finally paid.

And everybody who uses the corporation's products will pay for it when they raise their prices to cover the loss.

Mr. Laz
02-05-2005, 11:21 AM
it's complete crap


unless they held him down and forced beer down his throat, it's the drinker's responsibility.

KC Jones
02-05-2005, 11:33 AM
I don't know who's worse - the f#cking lawyers who think this shit up or the imbeciles they dupe into buying into it.

By far the lawyers, lawmakers, and judges that let it go on and encourage it. The "imbeciles" are being advantageous at worst. If something terribly tragic happened to one of my kids through no fault of my own, and a lawyer came along saying I could sue for $135 million and retire tomorrow to focus on raising my other kids and taking care of my handicapped kid, I'd have to seriously mull it over. It's not like corporations don't take advantage of every opportunity to sue the crap out of each other or individuals. There are companies that exist now for no other purpose than to sue.

At the end of the day, I have to take responsibility for my decisions and do what's best for my family. I'd like to believe I'd turn my back on the lawsuit for ethical reasons, but the chance to spend more time with my kids and never worry about income again would be very tempting.

Calcountry
02-05-2005, 11:35 AM
From the Washington Post today:

Interesting take on alcohol consumption at sporting events. Wanted to see what everyone thought. I've tailgated in the parking lot many times. There were times that I drank more than I should have, but I don't think anyone else should be held accountable for my actions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A64952-2005Feb4.html


Why Sports Should Sober Up

By James Mosher
Saturday, February 5, 2005; Page A19

Sports weekends go hand in hand with beer drinking, and this, of course, is about the biggest sports weekend of them all. But this Super Bowl Sunday, the people and the companies that promote the strong ties between sports and drinking might have a little something else on their minds: a jury verdict handed down in New Jersey last month intended to send a message about football's "culture of intoxication." The message? Enough is enough.

The jury awarded $135 million to a girl and her mother who were severely injured in a 1999 car crash involving a drunken driver who had just left a New York Giants game. The jury found that the stadium concessionaire, Aramark, irresponsibly sold beer to the man who caused the crash. Testimony indicated Aramark vendors ignored the company's policy and New Jersey law by selling six beers during halftime to Daniel Lanzaro, who was visibly drunk and whose speech was slurred. Lanzaro's pickup truck slammed into a car in which Fazila Verni and her then-2-year-old daughter, Antonia, were passengers. Antonia was paralyzed from the neck down.

While the trial focused only on Aramark and the situation at Giants Stadium, the problem is much bigger than one stadium or even one sport. And it's not just about professional sports; heavy drinking around college athletic events is a big problem, too.

Beer vendors at stadiums are a good place to start. Aramark is one of the largest alcohol and food concessionaires in the country, providing various services at more than 230 sports arenas, concert halls and other entertainment venues in the United States. Testimony at the trial showed that Aramark routinely violated the two-beer limit set by the NFL. We know that happened at Giants Stadium; what about other Aramark venues? And who is enforcing these limits?

While the plaintiffs' side settled its claims against the NFL, the Giants and Giants Stadium before the trial, this jury award should be a wake-up call for professional sports leagues, teams, stadiums and colleges. Their alcohol policies and practices could easily lead to further tragedies and large jury awards. For example, many stadiums open their parking lots for tailgating parties early in the morning on game days. Heavy drinking there goes unchecked, which can result in a stadium where many of the fans are drunken and rowdy even before kickoff. This is a recipe for violence at games and drunken driving afterward.

In fact, some major colleges already are revamping their tailgating policies. Ohio State University banned open containers at tailgate parties before Buckeye football games. The action has drawn fire from alumni groups and even Ohio lawmakers, but it has also brought back fans who were put off by the drunken atmosphere of the games, and it has helped stop the rioting that often accompanied football victories.

While the NFL won't yet say whether it plans to change its beer-service policies, the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, which manages Giants Stadium and the Meadowlands sports complex, says it will increase oversight of alcohol consumption before, during and after games on both sides of the turnstiles. At Pittsburgh's Heinz Stadium, beer sales abruptly ended before the start of the third quarter at the Pittsburgh Steelers-New England Patriots AFC championship game -- played a few days after the New Jersey jury verdict -- even though NFL policy allows sales until the end of the third quarter. Coincidence? Aramark is the concessionaire at Heinz Stadium.

A few basic reforms could help end the devastating consequences of combining sports and intoxication. Professional sports leagues, teams, stadiums, colleges and vendors need to review and reform their alcohol policies. Limiting tailgate parties, prohibiting open containers, restricting the amount of alcohol sold to a single customer, training staff to recognize signs of intoxication, and monitoring staff and customer behavior are among the reforms needed. Some colleges ban alcohol altogether at sporting events. Why should college football be saturated with beer advertising and drunken behavior? Ohio State provides a sensible approach to the problem.

Enforcement is the key. A vendor would ensure the two-drink limit was observed and refuse sales to minors and intoxicated fans, if the rules were strictly enforced and violations resulted in suspension or revocation of its franchise agreement and state liquor license. The NFL and its teams should work closely with vendors and law enforcement agencies to ensure internal rules and relevant state and local laws are followed to protect public safety.

Beer sales and advertising contracts at sporting events provide much revenue for everybody: Beer companies, vendors, teams, the NFL and the colleges all get a cut. But now, with this jury verdict, there's an economic incentive to do the right thing, obey the law and protect the public. Let's hope the leaders in the sports industry and universities hear the jury's message.

"ALL ABOARD!!!!!......ha ha..."

jettio
02-05-2005, 02:47 PM
The personal responsiblity in question is the drunk's, not the mother's. (And that should be perfectly obvious - perhaps you've been drinking.) Take it out of the asshole drunk driver's hide. He did the drinking, the driving, and the injuring. The responsibilty IS HIS.

And yes, I know the corporation will have more money than the driver. So does the lawyer, which is the whole reason behind suing the corporation in the first place. The lawyer will likely get a third of that $135 mil, or whatever amount is finally paid.

And everybody who uses the corporation's products will pay for it when they raise their prices to cover the loss.

Tort reformers are now crying into their already way the hell overpriced beer at the ballpark.

What an uninformed and amoral group of sheep those tort reformers are.

mcan
02-05-2005, 03:10 PM
Look at it this way... You show up to my house, I get you loaded, and then immediately kick you out.

Do I share some of the responsibility if you kill somebody because I forced you to leave? I think I might... That's why, I either have to limit the amount of alcohol that I give you, or allow you to stay on the premises until you are sober enough to drive. I think that is the real issue here. They shut down the stadium right after the game, and allow for a couple hours in the parking lot, but the stadiums don't want to pay people to sit in the parking lots and babysit 50,000 people...

JohnnyV13
02-05-2005, 03:15 PM
The personal responsiblity in question is the drunk's, not the mother's. (And that should be perfectly obvious - perhaps you've been drinking.) Take it out of the asshole drunk driver's hide. He did the drinking, the driving, and the injuring. The responsibilty IS HIS.

And yes, I know the corporation will have more money than the driver. So does the lawyer, which is the whole reason behind suing the corporation in the first place. The lawyer will likely get a third of that $135 mil, or whatever amount is finally paid.

And everybody who uses the corporation's products will pay for it when they raise their prices to cover the loss.


1. What makes you think the drunk driver is going to get off scott free??? Hello, the driver will face CRIMINAL charges and prison time. Why should "personal responsibility" lay all the blame on the driver when the concession company also had responsibility AND profits from their behavior?

2. In a competitive corporate environment, there is only a limited ability to pass on costs to the consumer. You can project this if you know the price elasticity of the company's product and the market model. If they arbitrarily raise prices they will no longer "profit maximize" and this affects the team's revenue. In this case, this company could lose the Giants concession contract b/c the football team gets a piece of the pie.

Bowser
02-05-2005, 03:15 PM
Look at it this way... You show up to my house, I get you loaded, and then immediately kick you out.

Do I share some of the responsibility if you kill somebody because I forced you to leave? I think I might... That's why, I either have to limit the amount of alcohol that I give you, or allow you to stay on the premises until you are sober enough to drive. I think that is the real issue here. They shut down the stadium right after the game, and allow for a couple hours in the parking lot, but the stadiums don't want to pay people to sit in the parking lots and babysit 50,000 people...

Isn't that why they cut booze sales off at the end of the third quarter?

ENDelt260
02-05-2005, 04:17 PM
All the two beer limit accomplishes is creating a minor inconvenience for the guy trying to buy a round for his group of friends. It's easily circumvented by any fan with the ability to say, "Hey Fred, walk with me to concession stand so we can buy more than two beers."

Calcountry
02-05-2005, 04:18 PM
All the two beer limit accomplishes is creating a minor inconvenience for the guy trying to buy a round for his group of friends. It's easily circumvented by any fan with the ability to say, "Hey Fred, walk with me to concession stand so we can buy more than two beers."4 beers, that will be 68 dollars please.

BIG_DADDY
02-05-2005, 05:10 PM
**** these attorneys, what a bunch of horsesh!t.

Calcountry
02-05-2005, 05:12 PM
**** these attorneys, what a bunch of horsesh!t.Bush is fast tracking tort reform right now.

mikey23545
02-05-2005, 06:49 PM
1. What makes you think the drunk driver is going to get off scott free??? Hello, the driver will face CRIMINAL charges and prison time. Why should "personal responsibility" lay all the blame on the driver when the concession company also had responsibility AND profits from their behavior?

2. In a competitive corporate environment, there is only a limited ability to pass on costs to the consumer. You can project this if you know the price elasticity of the company's product and the market model. If they arbitrarily raise prices they will no longer "profit maximize" and this affects the team's revenue. In this case, this company could lose the Giants concession contract b/c the football team gets a piece of the pie.

1) It is perfectly legal for a person to consume alcoholic beverages.
2) With the appropiate licenses, it is perfectly legal to sell alcoholic beverages.
3) It is perfectly legal to make a profit selling alcoholic beverages.
4 ) It is morally unconscionable to assume someone else should be held responsible for your behavior.
5) Costs will be passed on in many different areas; legal fees paid to lawyers by companies to protect themselves from frivolous lawsuits; extra costs to establish funds from which judgements or out of court settlements will be paid; higher insurance costs from insurance companies paying out monies to settle nuisance lawsuits. The list goes on and on.These extra costs, while not limitless, are nonetheless very real.

Idiots who abuse their freedom of choice, and idiots like you who take up for them are a huge problem. Greedy lawyers whose only purpose is to extort money from legitimately run businesses to line their own pockets, and idiots like you who defend them are a huge problem.

I hope Daddy tucks you in tonight.