millbank Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 A jury awarded $60 million US Tuesday to the family of a girl paralysed in a car wreck caused by a drunken football fan. Ronald and Fazila Verni were headed home from a pumpkin-picking trip in 1999 with their two-year-old daughter, Antonia, when their car was hit by a truck driven by Daniel Lanzaro, 34. Antonia was paralysed from the neck down. Lanzaro, whose blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit, is serving a five-year prison term for vehicular assault. The family sued Aramark, the Giants Stadium concessionaire, claiming vendors sold beers to Lanzaro even though he was clearly drunk and that Aramark fostered an atmosphere in which intoxicated patrons were served. Aramark lawyer Keith Harris did not immediately return a message Tuesday seeking comment. During his closing statement, he told jurors it was Lanzaro's decision to drive drunk that caused the crash. 60 million just in jury has award a additional $75 million in Punitive Damages makes the total $135 million , $60 million in compensatory damages , $75 Million in punitive for the total $135. "We're ecstatic," said David Mazie, the Vernis' attorney. "I think it sends an appropriate message, and hopefully this will make a difference at arenas across the country." A lawyer for Aramark did not immediately return a message from The Associated Press on Wednesday. But Brian Harris suggested during the trial that the vendors were not irresponsible when they sold Lanzaro beer because he is an admitted alcoholic and either did not show signs of intoxication or was able to fool the servers. Now at $135 million
Tux of Borg Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 I wonder if he's one of those morons who buy's 15 beers at halftime. Might as well mount the keg to their back.
stevestojan Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 The thing about the "2 beer at a time limit" at the Ralph is that its a joke. I would assume that goes every where. Maybe it will change now.
Tom Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 The thing about the "2 beer at a time limit" at the Ralph is that its a joke. I would assume that goes every where. Maybe it will change now. Change how? 1 beer limit? Unlimited? No beer? Please share.....
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Yet another disturbing ruling in a long line of many. At what point is a person responsible for their own actions? Idiots.
stevestojan Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Change how? 1 beer limit? Unlimited? No beer? Please share..... 210621[/snapback] My one idea would be to not allow the purchase of alcohol to someone who is obviously intoxicated. Give the venders the same athority as any bartender. The problem is, the vendors need to sell beer, so they wont cut anyone off. That wouldn't solve much, but it would help get rid of the liability held by the stadium. However, Darin is right. People need to be responsible for themselves.
KD in CA Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 My one idea would be to not allow the purchase of alcohol to someone who is obviously intoxicated. Give the venders the same athority as any bartender. 210632[/snapback] That doesn't work either unless you are going to limit each person to buying ONE beer. Usually one guy makes the beer run for 2-3 others. Especially at a game. It's different in a bar they can see everyone in the place fairly easily. At least the scumbag is spending five years in jail. Should be ten.
Tom Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Lanzaro is a self admitted alcoholic... he probably had a few bottles of booze in Giants Stadium parking lot..... I can see this changing with rulings like this. Tailgating could be doomed!
sfladave Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 I bartended for years and when things were busy it was very hard to tell if someone was intoxicated. Unless they're completely slurring their words or cannot stand up you usually couldn't tell. Everyone knows how busy those vendors are durring games and short of giving everyone a breathalizer you could never stop someone from drinking too much. The other thing to consider is that he wasn't even the one who purchased the drinks, it could have been a buddy doing the buying.
Tux of Borg Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 That doesn't work either unless you are going to limit each person to buying ONE beer. Usually one guy makes the beer run for 2-3 others. Especially at a game. It's different in a bar they can see everyone in the place fairly easily. At least the scumbag is spending five years in jail. Should be ten. 210636[/snapback] The problem i see with that is, these drunken idiots will sit down for 3 plays and get up for another beer. Not that they don't already do that. Bugs the sh-- out of me when I am there to watch the game.
Ralonzo Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Typical latter-day America - everybody's a victim except the evil moneybags corporations which exist only to be sued. How about not buying that 12th beer, Hondo?
Just Jack Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 My one idea would be to not allow the purchase of alcohol to someone who is obviously intoxicated. Give the venders the same athority as any bartender. The problem is, the vendors need to sell beer, so they wont cut anyone off. That wouldn't solve much, but it would help get rid of the liability held by the stadium. However, Darin is right. People need to be responsible for themselves. 210632[/snapback] They will choose not to sell someone beer if they are intoxicated. At the Steelers game I saw this happen at one of the vendors while I was waiting for my onion rings. This kid, probably early 20's, wanted two beers but the vendor wouldn't sell them to him because: 1) He had no ID on him 2) He was visibly intoxicated, slurring speech, wobbling while standing, etc. He spent about 3-4 minutes trying to get the guy to sell him a beer. Nothing he said was going to work.
mead107 Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 this is why ins. cost so damm much. 60 m way to much .
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Yet another disturbing ruling in a long line of many. At what point is a person responsible for their own actions? Idiots. 210625[/snapback] Actually I don't have a problem with this. Clearly, when someone is intoxicated they don't have control of their situation. This guy wasn't just drunk, he was HAMMERED, and Aramark had a big part in that.
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Actually I don't have a problem with this. Clearly, when someone is intoxicated they don't have control of their situation. This guy wasn't just drunk, he was HAMMERED, and Aramark had a big part in that. 210806[/snapback] He made the decision to start drinking when he knew he was going to get into his car and drive home later. I'm going to surmise that this wasn't the first time doing either thing for this clown. Dude needs to be removed from the gene pool. I'm tired of seeing people who sell alcohol blamed for the actions of those who imbibe. The slippery slope is deeply compromised.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 He made the decision to start drinking when he knew he was going to get into his car and drive home later. I'm going to surmise that this wasn't the first time doing either thing for this clown. Dude needs to be removed from the gene pool. I'm tired of seeing people who sell alcohol blamed for the actions of those who imbibe. The slippery slope is deeply compromised. 210816[/snapback] Yes, well, what other recourse did the family of the TWO YEAR OLD GIRL forever doomed to life in a wheelchair have? This loser probably doesn't have anything. And yes, Aramark was responsible for selling the azzhat beer.
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Yes, well, what other recourse did the family of the TWO YEAR OLD GIRL forever doomed to life in a wheelchair have? This loser probably doesn't have anything. And yes, Aramark was responsible for selling the azzhat beer. 210829[/snapback] And with that Joe begins his turn toward the liberal dark side.
Terry Tate Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 However, Darin is right. 210632[/snapback]
Alaska Darin Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 210839[/snapback] The irony there is palpable. Steve blames guns for violence but not beer for drunk driving. Meanwhile, Darin remains consistant in his stance that freedom is cool and individuals who abuse it should be removed from the gene pool.
BillsFanNC Posted January 19, 2005 Posted January 19, 2005 Wasn't this case the impetus behind the NFL mandating stadium lots opening no earlier than 4 hours prior to kickoff?
Recommended Posts