Nevada Mom Sues Coors Over Son's Death (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,117447,00.html)

I spent half my life living in and around Reno. I thought that people in that area had more sense than this, but then I guess it only takes one bad apple... :rolleyes:

I wish I were the judge on this one...

Bailiff: "Please rise, the Honorable Judge Darkwolf is now presiding."

Judge: [no bother with telling everyone to be seated, this won’t take that long]"Miss Pisco, I understand society’s desire to bring justice to those responsible for the negligent loss of a life. However this court is disinclined to provide you a forum by which to ease your conscience for your failure to raise a responsible child. Subsequently this lawsuit is hereby dismissed with extreme prejudice, and you are ordered to pay those legal fees reasonably incurred by the defendants in addition to all court costs. In lieu of payment, said court costs shall be considered fully discharged should you, within two weeks, provide a written dissertation to the Reno Gazette for consideration, without expectation of further compensation, detailing your failures a parent that are culpable in this tragedy. As a warning, should you choose to accept this offer, any attempt to offset the blame for your child’s death shall be met with a bench warrant for your arrest on the charge of contempt of court, and you shall spend 30 consecutive days in the Washoe County Detention Facility. This court is adjourned."

I wonder how many people would reconsider their frivolous lawsuits if judges started taking a hard-line on them.

I agree that the suit against Coors is ridiculous, and I also agree that the mother is looking for someone other than herself and her parenting skills (or lack thereof) to blame. However:
Also named in the suit were Ryan Pisco's girlfriend and her mother. The lawsuit alleges the girlfriend allowed Pisco, who lacked a valid driver's license, to drive off in her car, which had been given to her by her mother. Actually, the claim against the girlfriend IMO has some merit, since it was her car, and she presumably knew that he was drunk and unlicensed. But the claim against the mother seems silly unless she knew her daughter was going to lend the car to a drunken, unlicensed driver.

I don't see how a brewing company can control who gets hold of their product. The people who directly contribute to underage drinking are the ones at fault, eg storeowners, or the people who supplied the drink at the party. Even so, nobodyseems to stop and consider the fact that maybe he knew what he was doing? He chose to drink of his own free will, so should shoulder the responsibilty for his actions. I suppose though that is impossible for a parent to accept that their dead child was at fault.
As for the girlfriend: if she knew he was drunk, and unlicensed, yet still let him drive off in her car, then I believe she does bear some of the responsibility for the crash.

The "kid" was 19. He drank and drove, and paid the price. Case closed, next!

This is just another lawsuit that proves that USA must look over their legal department and start kicking these idiotic people out from the courtroom with ass handed to them. This is just like the woman that sued McDonalds for making her and/or children fat(I don't recall exactly the case), I mean, it is not like McDonalds ran up to them and forced them to eat 20 BigMacs 'day.

This is just plain silly, I don't understand how the courts can take cases like this seriously. Why can't she just accept the fact that her son screwd up and he and only he is to blame. And if she is just trying to make money with the death of her son it's just plain disgusting.

Well if she manages to make any money out of them then fair play to her. I mean why not, if I had the opportunity to sue a company and make a lot of money, I would most certainly would.

Maybe, but that just promotes greed, and if other people see people winning these lawsuits, they might do it too, even if they care only about the money, not how they were wronged.

If I got sued that way and won, I would sue the misbegotten plaintiff for loss of time and everything else possible including de facto forcing me to divert my attention from drinking. And, speaking of drinking, the cost of additional alcohol necessary to relieve me of all stress effected. Not to mention more damage to my liver :rolleyes:

No doubt, it would earn me some bucks and the pleasure of seing the smartasses jaw-dropped would be almost physical.

Jodie Pisco, of Reno (search), contends Coors has failed in its duty to protect the country's youth from drinking. Her son, Ryan, was killed in 2002 after he drank Coors at a party and drove his girlfriend's car into a light pole at 90 mph, the lawsuit says. Not in any particular order:

Last I checked, neither Coors nor any other brewery actually had a duty to protect the country's youth from anything, including drinking their products. That was up to (wait for it) . . . the bloody parents.

Now, as for the bash on the legal system, please note that this action was just filed and there are ways to dispose of them early, just as the McDonald's "I'm fat, pay me" lawsuit was dismissed.

I fully expect Coors to file a motion to dismiss (or the Nevada equivalent) and get rid of this.

As for "letting this crap get filed" or similar sentiments, I'd rather have the current completely open-door policy than have any court clerk making a decision of what content is appropriate for a judge to see. The way it is presently handled, if a party doesn't think the case has merit, the party tells the judge that by way of a motion. I sure as heck don't want any lesser gatekeeper than the judge.

Let the system do its work. Here in California, there are ways of attacking frivolous filings, but it often doesn't make monetary sense to do so. However, that is the choice of the individual defendant.

BS. Absolute BS. That's all I can say about this.

I firmly believe that anyone who gets drunk agrees, by doing so, to pay for the consequences. And while it may be sad that Rico got himself killed. That's exactly what happened: he got himself killed. His g/f may have been irresponsible in letting him take her car (if she did indeed *let* him; he very well may have just taken it without her permission), she wasn't the one who drove him into a lightpost, at 90 mph.

And blaming Coors is just ridiculous. A person would have to a complete moron to hold a company responsible for what people do with their product. If someone slips on a bar of Dove soap and breaks their arm, should they sue Dove for damages? I mean, come on. Or better yet, should the "poor, grieving" mother sue the car company for building a car that couldn't save her son?

I guess it's true what they say:
Common sense is not so common.

Bahaha! Only in America. :p

I agree with Darkwolf on how harsh the judges should be for people wasting the court's time with stupid things. In turn she could sue her lawyer for not telling her that this is a 'very' stupid move. However I'm sure her lawyer would have said it's a stupid move but went along with it anyway since he's getting paid and she's driving on emotion.

Why doesn't she sue the state for the placement of the lamp-post and the hard materials it was made out of?

Anyone seen that episode of "The Practice", where a nearly identical lawsuit was presented? Well, at first, the parents were offered a settlement, but it wasn't enough cash for them. Then they kept up the process, and in the end the jury awarded them with millions for their diligence... If the lawsuit succeeded there, I don't see why it couldn't in real life... Frankly, I find this gold digging while standing on a corpse of a sibling/relative disgusting. It's a mockery to be first an irresponsible parent, and then try to get money from it by blaming it on someone else. The problem is, in the US, it often works.

Actually, Tal, you're example of "The Practise" is a good one. I haven't watched the show for a long time (because everything seems so ridiculous), but for those people who do watch it (or shows similar to it),perhaps the thinking is "hey, if it's on TV, then it must be legitimate, so maybe I should give it a shot". So in a way, TV might be to blame.

*Thinks* :money:

Let's sue media-companies and become rich. :evil:

(Seriously now; if she wants to spend her money to a lawyer, and get laughed out of the court, go ahead. I can't see any at least half-intelligent jury accepting this... But then: it's US. :rolleyes: )

Well...I figured it would be in keeping with the spirit of this thread to bring up this link (http://www.sorcerers.net/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=20;t=000140).

Basically, it's just about previous cases where people hungry for a quick buck tried to get it from the American government.

Makes you think...eh?

I want everyone to know, I'm filing a lawsuit against Taluntain, for making me into an alcoholic, by allowing a post about Coors to be posted, and read on his website. Furthermore, it has caused intensive emotional trauma to me, after reading that drinkers of Coors are killed in automobile accidents, which makes mothers sad. I don't want my mother to be sad.

The damages to be demanded:
$100,000.00 (U.S., none of that crappy Yen stuff you Europeans use.), an official letter of apology, and a half-eaten granola bar (the half-eaten granola bar is to cover the cost of the lawyer, DMC are you available?).

I fully expect Sorvo to take action as well.

Rergarding Sorvo....pre-existing condition. He was a drunkered before he was born. ;)

You can have all my accounts, and the debt accompanying them. :D

Choke - I think you might have a collection problem, and I demand the whole granola bar as my fee :)

When I finish my current arbitration, I'll look into your case, although we may also have a proximate causation issue as well.

As for Sorvo's case, I think there may be an assumption of risk problem with that one.

:yot:
At ArtEChoke, Yen is the Japanese currency, your thinking of the Euro or the Pound

[ April 22, 2004, 10:45: Message edited by: Dalveen ]

Funnily enough, the above case could have some merit on one level that I can see.

If it can be demonstrated that Coors or any other brewery actively encourage, and market their product specifically promoting under age drinking, then they do have a case to answer.

Of course this is a much broader issue than specifically holding them responsible for the death of some unfortunate 19 year old.

Having said that, holding manufacturers responsible for the irresponsible use of their products has already failed if I'm not mistaken in the far more contentious case of a gun manufacturer being sued by the family of a gun crime victim. If the manufacturer of a weapon which is intended to harm people is not responsible for it's (ab)use, then it is hard to see how the manufacturer of a product made for the safe enjoyment of adults can be held responsible.

This is not an encouragement for any sort of debate about the safety etc of alcohol. It is perfectly safe if enjoyed in moderation, dangerous if abused.

Dalveen, I know. You didn't understand that the whole post was a joke?

Viking, interesting point about the marketing aspect, but I think it would be hard to prove that their advertising is promoting drunken driving.

Does anyone know what the current Coors ad slant is? Is it the "wing man" commercials or is that Miller Lite?

Just out of interest, what are the rules on drinking and driving in the US? They are pretty heavy in Europe, though they do vary wildly from lenient in the more southern countries to draconian in Scandinavia. Draconian in this context is a mandatory 3 week prison sentence in Norway, though I'm not sure that still holds true.

I totally agree that it is not conceivable that Coors would in any way condone or promote drink driving btw. Simply wouldn't wash anywhere these days.

Just a bit off-topic, but also a bit on-topic as well, I give you some news from Sweden; A couple of days ago, it became illegal for beer companies to make any commercials that promote drinking for young adults i.e. people under 25. So, that practically means that if there is a beer commercial containing a single person 25 or under in it, it is banned from now on here in Sweden.

@ Viking: - in Canada,laws vary, ranging from moderate to severe. In the U.S., I would assume the same is true (except in Texas, where I understand it's illegal not to drink and drive :p )

@ Caleb - wow! That seems to be going a bit too far. What is the legal drinking age in Sweden? And what does the law mean exactly - there can't be anyone under 25 in commercials?