The passenger was sued because he helped get the beer. If you “procure” alcohol for a minor you can be held liable if the minor gets drunk and hurts someone else. That is why the passenger and the co-worker could be held liable. They helped get the booze.
The issue before the court was whether the passenger could be held liable for the adult’s beer buyers share of the blame. This is akin to aiding and abetting a crime. They are all on the hook.
The courts decision seemed logical but there is something that does add up.
It sounds like the insured agreed to a settlement without the insurer being party to the agreement? If that is the case, why would the insured do such a thing?
The insured usually can’t settle. That’s part of the conditions of most policies. The article is most likely just written poorly; when the article states “they agreed..” it most probably means “the inurer agreed…”
Although if the latter is the case, that’s interesting indeed!
Okay, am I missing something here? I understand under some very extreme circumstances (i.e drunken passanger grabs the wheel & causes accident), but by just being a passanger in someone elses vehicle, which happens to be drunk (not a great idea), how is the passanger liable for anything the driver does. How can and Insurance Company or Court of Law determine to start making payments on behalf of the passanger, then say “oops” wait, he is not responsible. We really need more info on this case as the article isn’t very clear to me.
I believe the issue is it was the passengers co-worker who provided the alcohol to the underage teenagers. The article states the passenger could not be help accountable for his co-workers actions (providing the alcohol) and is therefore not liable to pay damages for the accident.
I’m confused still. For some reason the insurer was already making payments (I assume from the “doesn’t have to pay any more” bit) but I’m wondering why. And why the passenger’s insurance and not the driver’s? And why would anybody think because somebody who the passenger knew provided them beer that the passenger could be held responsible for the driver’s actions? This whole article makes my head spin. I’m going to go lie down with a beer in my car on the interstate and talk on the cell phone.
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.
google david schrimpf – read the fourth article which is the Supreme Court of WI decision. it really explains all questions.
There’s a bunch on google when you search for David Schrimpf.
Once again, a poorly written article on IJ. C’mon editors – wake up.
The passenger was sued because he helped get the beer. If you “procure” alcohol for a minor you can be held liable if the minor gets drunk and hurts someone else. That is why the passenger and the co-worker could be held liable. They helped get the booze.
The issue before the court was whether the passenger could be held liable for the adult’s beer buyers share of the blame. This is akin to aiding and abetting a crime. They are all on the hook.
The courts decision seemed logical but there is something that does add up.
It sounds like the insured agreed to a settlement without the insurer being party to the agreement? If that is the case, why would the insured do such a thing?
The insured usually can’t settle. That’s part of the conditions of most policies. The article is most likely just written poorly; when the article states “they agreed..” it most probably means “the inurer agreed…”
Although if the latter is the case, that’s interesting indeed!
Talk about poor writing! I meant “if the former is the case”. Jeez. I think I’m so smart…
Okay, am I missing something here? I understand under some very extreme circumstances (i.e drunken passanger grabs the wheel & causes accident), but by just being a passanger in someone elses vehicle, which happens to be drunk (not a great idea), how is the passanger liable for anything the driver does. How can and Insurance Company or Court of Law determine to start making payments on behalf of the passanger, then say “oops” wait, he is not responsible. We really need more info on this case as the article isn’t very clear to me.
I believe the issue is it was the passengers co-worker who provided the alcohol to the underage teenagers. The article states the passenger could not be help accountable for his co-workers actions (providing the alcohol) and is therefore not liable to pay damages for the accident.
I’m confused still. For some reason the insurer was already making payments (I assume from the “doesn’t have to pay any more” bit) but I’m wondering why. And why the passenger’s insurance and not the driver’s? And why would anybody think because somebody who the passenger knew provided them beer that the passenger could be held responsible for the driver’s actions? This whole article makes my head spin. I’m going to go lie down with a beer in my car on the interstate and talk on the cell phone.
I read this article 4 times and it got more confusing each time. I was relieved to see I was not the only one confused.