If they’re going to play point-the-finger regarding the actions of their adult son (19 is still a legal adult, right?) maybe the family should name themselves as defendants for raising a kid who didn’t make better decisions?
So what if the party hosts knew he wasn’t 21? At the age of 19, one can easily assume the deceased knew he was breaking the law by drinking and that drinking to excess causes one to make poor choices that can lead to injury or death.
To me this sounds like a case of accidental suicide and the only party truly liable and responsible for the young man’s death is he himself.
Cold Hearted is absolutely on point. Nobody sold this under-aged young man booze. He voluntarily took advantage of the fact it was there. First he over-indulged, then was dumb enough to wander outside.
What are the MN courts thinking? (or not) First, the statute ran. Secondly, why should the surviving relatives make money over the poor judgment of the deceased? I’d like to see this end up with a trial and verdict for the plaintiffk’s with $1.00 awarded for damages.
When something bad happens we would all like to blame someone else. But I agree with cold hearted. Nineteen yearolds are responsible for their own actions.
It makes me wonder how judges can be so off the mark when making decisions like this. Do you really have to be a lawyer to practice law or sit on the bench? Apparently, because the rest of us would have to rely on our common sense, which seems not to apply to legal issues…..
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
If they’re going to play point-the-finger regarding the actions of their adult son (19 is still a legal adult, right?) maybe the family should name themselves as defendants for raising a kid who didn’t make better decisions?
So what if the party hosts knew he wasn’t 21? At the age of 19, one can easily assume the deceased knew he was breaking the law by drinking and that drinking to excess causes one to make poor choices that can lead to injury or death.
To me this sounds like a case of accidental suicide and the only party truly liable and responsible for the young man’s death is he himself.
Cold Hearted is absolutely on point. Nobody sold this under-aged young man booze. He voluntarily took advantage of the fact it was there. First he over-indulged, then was dumb enough to wander outside.
What are the MN courts thinking? (or not) First, the statute ran. Secondly, why should the surviving relatives make money over the poor judgment of the deceased? I’d like to see this end up with a trial and verdict for the plaintiffk’s with $1.00 awarded for damages.
that’s what I call natural selection at work
When something bad happens we would all like to blame someone else. But I agree with cold hearted. Nineteen yearolds are responsible for their own actions.
It makes me wonder how judges can be so off the mark when making decisions like this. Do you really have to be a lawyer to practice law or sit on the bench? Apparently, because the rest of us would have to rely on our common sense, which seems not to apply to legal issues…..