If a 24-year-old bought the alcohol, as the article states, then it was a legal transaction, correct? So where is the liquor store\’s liability in this?
If the Liquor Commission files for a motion to dismiss themselves as a party to the case and is reasonably able to prove an of-age person made the purchase, I\’m betting the motion will be granted.
Unless I\’m missing something, I don\’t see how there\’s any possible way the Liquor Commission bears a bit of fault in the car accident.
The Liquor Store and Dore are liable because the parents of the 20 year old idiot that was too stupid to know not to get into a vehicle with a drunk want to get money out of someone – Of course, they\’re not liable because they didn\’t raise their child to be more responsible and know when enough was too much…
I have a son and it pains me to think of the situations he will get into as he grows up – but that\’s just the way of the world – I would be devistated if anything ever happened to him and I pray to God that the talks we have, and have had over the years do not fall on deaf ears – He seems to be responsible enough to know that if he found himself in a situation like that – no matter whether he were drinking or not – he could call me for a ride no matter what the time of day or night – no questions asked (maybe a discussion later – but off limits until the next day)
I grew up in the same boat – and it would curl my mothers hair if she knew some of the things I did – but I managed to survive because I was dumb – not stupid…
If God forbid – I found myself in the parents shoes – I know that no one is more responsible for a young adult\’s life than that individual and me as a parent.
They\’re money grubbing free-loaders – the $$ will not bring back their child – I guess however they\’ll be able to take a nice vacation on it…
Oh, come on… everybody knows that the kid driving the car should have been over in Iraq fighting for our rights to drink at a younger age… actually, granny should have probably been there, too. It\’s not a matter of who\’s liable, it\’s a matter of who has the deepest pockets! Nobody seems to be responsible for their own choices and actions, regardless of their age. The DRIVER is the only one I see at fault.
This story is typical of how America is getting. No one takes responsibility for anything. Of course the 24 year old bought the liquor, unless the 20 year old had a fake ID. Rum, Vodka and Brandy – not the first time this kid had a drink! And let\’s not discount the lawyer driving this bus; promises of big money for the grieving parents.
Great comments Foster and Julio. There is absolutely no liability on the Store or the Grandmother. This is all about deep pockets and money grubbing, gold digging attorneys and the stupidity of the plaintiffs. I am not sure which party is more disgusting.
First, there is debate over who exactly made the purchase. Plaintiffs allege 20 year-old Kincaid bought the liquor, defendants say it was one of the 24 year-olds. In any case, what \”the article states\” is probably not evidence that would be admissable here.
May not be able to prove one way or the other unless the purchase was videotaped.
Well, I think you are all right! The store sold alcohol, the folks drank it, they left & drove 53 in a 30 & ran into a light pole??? The Atty needed to name the driver in the suit too, oh & who put that light pole there? Why did they do it there? It looks like the Attorney forgot to name a few in the suit. Could have also included the contractor & all the subs on that job & then of course the City & the City planners, where did that Atty go to Law School?
I\’m sure President Bush is at fault, Merry Christmas Everyone, May God Bless Our Service Men & Women defending our right to be stupid ……..Amen and Amen
If a 24-year-old bought the alcohol, as the article states, then it was a legal transaction, correct? So where is the liquor store\’s liability in this?
If the Liquor Commission files for a motion to dismiss themselves as a party to the case and is reasonably able to prove an of-age person made the purchase, I\’m betting the motion will be granted.
Unless I\’m missing something, I don\’t see how there\’s any possible way the Liquor Commission bears a bit of fault in the car accident.
The Liquor Store and Dore are liable because the parents of the 20 year old idiot that was too stupid to know not to get into a vehicle with a drunk want to get money out of someone – Of course, they\’re not liable because they didn\’t raise their child to be more responsible and know when enough was too much…
I have a son and it pains me to think of the situations he will get into as he grows up – but that\’s just the way of the world – I would be devistated if anything ever happened to him and I pray to God that the talks we have, and have had over the years do not fall on deaf ears – He seems to be responsible enough to know that if he found himself in a situation like that – no matter whether he were drinking or not – he could call me for a ride no matter what the time of day or night – no questions asked (maybe a discussion later – but off limits until the next day)
I grew up in the same boat – and it would curl my mothers hair if she knew some of the things I did – but I managed to survive because I was dumb – not stupid…
If God forbid – I found myself in the parents shoes – I know that no one is more responsible for a young adult\’s life than that individual and me as a parent.
They\’re money grubbing free-loaders – the $$ will not bring back their child – I guess however they\’ll be able to take a nice vacation on it…
Is NH a common law or dram state.What rating does it carry.
Oh, come on… everybody knows that the kid driving the car should have been over in Iraq fighting for our rights to drink at a younger age… actually, granny should have probably been there, too. It\’s not a matter of who\’s liable, it\’s a matter of who has the deepest pockets! Nobody seems to be responsible for their own choices and actions, regardless of their age. The DRIVER is the only one I see at fault.
This story is typical of how America is getting. No one takes responsibility for anything. Of course the 24 year old bought the liquor, unless the 20 year old had a fake ID. Rum, Vodka and Brandy – not the first time this kid had a drink! And let\’s not discount the lawyer driving this bus; promises of big money for the grieving parents.
Great comments Foster and Julio. There is absolutely no liability on the Store or the Grandmother. This is all about deep pockets and money grubbing, gold digging attorneys and the stupidity of the plaintiffs. I am not sure which party is more disgusting.
First, there is debate over who exactly made the purchase. Plaintiffs allege 20 year-old Kincaid bought the liquor, defendants say it was one of the 24 year-olds. In any case, what \”the article states\” is probably not evidence that would be admissable here.
May not be able to prove one way or the other unless the purchase was videotaped.
Wow…there must be some Expedia specials on Caribbean cruises…
I would suggest Priceline
A question of facts. Just what the attorney wants. Wanna roll the dice with a jury?
Well, I think you are all right! The store sold alcohol, the folks drank it, they left & drove 53 in a 30 & ran into a light pole??? The Atty needed to name the driver in the suit too, oh & who put that light pole there? Why did they do it there? It looks like the Attorney forgot to name a few in the suit. Could have also included the contractor & all the subs on that job & then of course the City & the City planners, where did that Atty go to Law School?
I\’m sure President Bush is at fault, Merry Christmas Everyone, May God Bless Our Service Men & Women defending our right to be stupid ……..Amen and Amen
Bush might be at fault, after all he has a DWI on his record.