Wife sues Minnesota Wild for husband's crash

 

Saturday, December 13, 2003 Posted: 9:36 PM EST (0236 GMT)

 

ST. PAUL, Minnesota (AP) -- The wife of a hockey fan who crashed his car after drinking too much at a Minnesota Wild game has sued the team, saying her husband shouldn't have been served so much alcohol.

 

Kris Lodahl, 37, was paralyzed in the February 8, 2002 crash. His wife, Rebecca, 39, is suing under a state law that holds bars and other establishments liable for serving someone who is obviously drunk, said her attorney, Harry Sieben Jr.

 

She is seeking at least $50,000 in damages, claiming "loss of guidance, counsel, aide, comfort, assistance, protection and support of her husband," as well as mental anguish and financial loss.

 

The rest of the story . . .

God forbid the guy take responsibility for his own drinking and driving. TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS YOU PIECE OF CRAP!!!!

 

Crap lawsuits like this really tick me off...

I hate stories like this. Take some f***ing responsibility for yourself. Did the mean old Wild MAKE him drink so much? Did he have a sign on his forehead that said "irresponsible drunk who doesn't know his limit"?

 

He made a dumb decesion and should have to live with the consequenses.

God forbid the guy take responsibility for his own drinking and driving.  TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN ACTIONS!!!!

As a former waitress.. the server is schooled in identifying someone who has had too much. While I agree that those who choose to drink should take responsibility for their actions.. those serving them have a responsibility as well. That's why the law is a law. Servers know the law.. She should not become rich and retire from this though. Anyone know if there are limits on civil awards attached to this law?

A drunk driver should NEVER be awarded for those actions, law or no law. He's lucky someone didn't die. If he wins, give him a penny. Hell, he doesn't deserve that. f*** this guy and f*** drunks trying to make a buck on their inability to be responsibile for themselves. One of them took my uncle (sorry, but Thursday is the 25th anniversary of his death and thusly, this topic is touchy for me).

Here's the bigger implication people.

 

Let's make an assumption here. He was sitting in his middle-of-the-row seat, and was being served by a beer vendor at his seat. The vendor will not be able to hear him, see him walk, or even get a good look at his eyes. He may be 30 feet away. If the plaintif wins this suit, beer sales might be at a counter only. No more beer vendors.

 

I support the laws that place some responsibility on the bar that is serving a product that is known to reduce reasoning and causes deaths every year. A sober bartender or waitress is in better position to judge a person's sobriety level than the drunk. Dah, we've all been there. It comes with owning a liquor license.

 

Because of the profit on beer sales how this plays out could have a big ripple effect on ticket prices, free agent signings, when liquor sales are halted, etc.

Here's the bigger implication people.

 

Let's make an assumption here. He was sitting in his middle-of-the-row seat, and was being served by a beer vendor at his seat. The vendor will not be able to hear him, see him walk, or even get a good look at his eyes. He may be 30 feet away. If the plaintif wins this suit, beer sales might be at a counter only. No more beer vendors.

 

I support the laws that place some responsibility on the bar that is serving a product that is known to reduce reasoning and causes deaths every year.  A sober bartender or waitress is in better position to judge a person's sobriety level than the drunk. Dah, we've all been there.  It comes with owning a liquor license. 

 

Because of the profit on beer sales how this plays out could have a big ripple effect on ticket prices, free agent signings, when liquor sales are halted, etc.

Tex.. I heard on MSNBC that he bought his last few beers at a concession stand on the 2nd level and was clearly intoxicated. There is also rumblings that the server was not 21 - which they must be to ring the beer. If the guy was as drunk as it sounds.. IMO, the seller is liable. I denied many guys pitchers of beers, and once got struck for taking someone's keys.. It goes with the job. All the server had to do was call security to report him.

Steff is right - every state (that I know of) has laws on not serving intoxicated people.

 

Everyone has a repsonsibility - including the server. The bar or whatever alcohol providing estabishment oprates under a license and as with all licenses, certain requirements and obligations go with that.

 

I have buried people who have driven drunk and died; I have buried their victims. Among the places where responsibility lies, it includes those who profit off of selling alcohol. If a place that serves alcohol violates the law and serves an intoxicated person, then they have a moral and legal liability.

Steff,

What is the law if the guy has a designated driver with him? I would assume it wouldn't matter since anyone can lie.

 

Still if a sports team lost this they will have to reevaluate their practices and the above would still be possible. I would guess that most/all teams have insurance (dram shop?) for this and the insurance carriers might raise their premiums for teams that "seat vend"

I don't think anyone said she was wrong - I know there are laws like that in IL as well. I think that they have a good point, but the problem is that they open it to people making a buck on their irresponsibility. The ability to sue should be limited to people the drunk injures, kills or if they cause property damage.

 

 

Sorry to be b****y about this topic, but these type of lawsuits are beyond frivolous. It's one thing if someone/family of that he injured/killed/destroyed property to recoup, but for the guy to make a buck on his own stupidity burns me.

Steff,

What is the law if the guy has a designated driver with him? I would assume it wouldn't matter since anyone can lie.

 

Still if a sports team lost this they will have to reevaluate their practices and the above would still be possible. I would guess that most/all teams have insurance (dram shop?) for this and the insurance carriers might raise their premiums for teams that "seat vend"

No idea. Not sure if he had one, either.

 

One thing about these vendors.. the teams sell the beer to the vendors. Anything the vendor makes over what he's bought the case for is his to keep. The team makes their $$. Yes.. the more cases they sell to the vendors, they make. But they are not loosing $$ from halting sales to overserved patrons.

No idea. Not sure if he had one, either.

 

One thing about these vendors.. the teams sell the beer to the vendors. Anything the vendor makes over what he's bought the case for is his to keep. The team makes their $$. Yes.. the more cases they sell to the vendors, they make. But they are not loosing $$ from halting sales to overserved patrons.

So instead of the team being the one who is hurt by someone getting cut off, it is the person who LEAST can afford to cut someone off. (that being the vendor) Great system.

I don't think anyone said she was wrong - I know there are laws like that in IL as well.  I think that they have a good point, but the problem is that they open it to people making a buck on their irresponsibility.  The ability to sue should be limited to people the drunk injures, kills or if they cause property damage.

 

 

Sorry to be b****y about this topic, but these type of lawsuits are beyond frivolous.  It's one thing if someone/family of that he injured/killed/destroyed property to recoup, but for the guy to make a buck on his own stupidity burns me.

Heaven for bid the server (waitress or bartender) who's making kick ass tips serving the drunk who doesn't realize how much he's/she's drinking cause they are being treated like royalty, take some responsibility as well. It's a 2 way street. If more servers took this seriously, there would be less incident's like this.

 

I'm going to take this a bit further.. there was an incident this past summer where a friend (clearly intoxocated) wanted another beer after an event I was at. I said no. There was no incident. Had there been one - resulting from me giving this person more beer - I would have felt responsible.

So instead of the team being the one who is hurt by someone getting cut off, it is the person who LEAST can afford to cut someone off. (that being the vendor)  Great system.

Mike.. they make bank. They (Sox vendors) buy the case for $31. They sell the beers for $4.25 each (minus tip). They make $102 a case - the $31 they paid for it.. they net $71, minus tips. Don't feel sorry for them at all.

Mike.. they make bank. They (Sox vendors) buy the case for $31. They sell the beers for $4.25 each (minus tip). They make $102 a case - the $31 they paid for it.. they net $71, minus tips. Don't feel sorry for them at all.

I understand the point, but isn't a beer $4.75 at Comiskey? I know it doesn't much difference.

I understand the point, but isn't a beer $4.75 at Comiskey?  I know it doesn't much difference.

I thought it was $4.25.. ? You're probably right (Jim buys so I have no idea.. ). So they net $83. Bastards.

I thought it was $4.25.. ? You're probably right (Jim buys so I have no idea..  ). So they net $83. Bastards. 

Well put Jim on the computer then $4.25? It must have been a couple of years since you bought a beer.

Well put Jim on the computer then     $4.25?  It must have been a couple of years since you bought a beer.

I normally drink the Vodka Lemonades..

I agree that people need to take more responsibilty for their actions but here is a piece of the puzzle you are all missing. The Wild security kicked this guy out of the stadium. As soon as they did that they should have called the guy a cab or called the police. They should never had thrown someone out in the street in that condition.

I agree that people need to take more responsibilty for their actions but here is a piece of the puzzle you are all missing.  The Wild security kicked this guy out of the stadium.  As soon as they did that they should have called the guy a cab or called the police.  They should never had thrown someone out in the street in that condition.

And therein lies the responsibility. You toss someone out you KNOW has had too much. Would it have been so hard to call law enforcement to handle this? They could have driven him home, or detained him the second he started his car. Unreal..

And therein lies the responsibility. You toss someone out you KNOW has had too much. Would it have been so hard to call law enforcement to handle this? They could have driven him home, or detained him the second he started his car. Unreal..

Espesially since most security guards at events like this are off duty cops, correct? That changes the perspective totally. If a cop knowingly let this guy drive off drunk, that is a gross neglect of duty.

Great, now we let facts get in the way of rightous indignation

 

We should also remember the guy is paralysed. It's not like he's going to be dancing if he wins anything.

Great, now we let facts get in the way of rightous indignation

 

We should also remember the guy is paralysed. It's not like he's going to be dancing if he wins anything.

I still think it is a stupid thing for him to be suing. He is the one who drank too much and drove home. If he didn't drink and drive, he would still be walking. Period.

I still think it is a stupid thing for him to be suing.  He is the one who drank too much and drove home.  If he didn't drink and drive, he would still be walking.  Period.

That would mean he was taking responsibility for his actions.

 

I understand that there should be some form of punishment for the establishment for serving him when he was in that condition, but from what I understand of the law referred to several times in this thread, the law was made for those who were victims of the drunk, not for the drunk himself/herself.

 

I would still like to know why this man should be allowed to make bank on his own inability to be a responisble adult...

If you are unhappy with the laws write your congessman and demand that bars have the right to sell as much liquor as there customer can drink. Explain that it is a bad law that prohibits bars from getting someone as drunk as the individual wants to get.

 

Then explain to a family who lost someone to a drunk, why it was necessary to repeal a law that helps, in a small way, to keep people from getting drunker and killing themselves and innocent people.

 

Basically we (US society) have decided that if a company is serving an intoxicating substance that is known to impare judgement they must exercise responsibility. The paradox with alchohol is the moment that you need the most judgement is the moment you have the least capability for judgement.

 

The Wild understood fully the laws and their responsibilities when they decided to sell liquor. I don't necessarily fault the person for availing themselves of everything under our laws.