Where does personal responsibility start? Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll Added
posted at 8:15 am on March 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A lawsuit in Minnesota will start a debate on whether adults should have responsibility for the actions of other non-relative adults. Amanda Jax died in a drinking binge on her 21st birthday, a tragedy that occasionally occurs in the US. Her parents filed an expected lawsuit against the nightclub where Jax drank, but surprisingly included Jax’s friends, who accompanied her on the binge:
The family of a woman who drank herself to death at a Mankato nightspot while celebrating her 21st birthday is suing not only the establishment but also the friends who bought her a steady stream of drinks.
The lawsuit, filed Thursday in Blue Earth County District Court, alleges that on Oct. 29 the college-age friends of Amanda Jax bought her one drink after another in less than two hours.
As a result, Jax’s parents are taking the unusual legal step of suing her companions, in a case that could set a precedent as to who can be held legally liable when someone drinks too much. …
Jax, the suit contends, “was in the care” of the friends who gave alcohol to “an obviously intoxicated person.” Their actions, the suit argues, “created an unreasonable risk of causing physical harm” to Jax, and the friends “failed to exercise reasonable care” in preventing harm to her.
“I don’t know how they could have called themselves friends and not done anything,” said a tearful Jenny Haag, Jax’s mother. “They helped her drink even when she wanted to quit. If people had called 911 [in time], then Amanda’s death could have been avoided.”
The death of Amanda Jax is undoubtedy a tragedy, and a senseless one at that. Too often, young men and women choose to celebrate legal access to alcohol by binging, in effect poisoning themselves with drink. Almost all of them survive it, but a few simply go too far. And one has to question why her friends didn’t consider the dangers of buying such a large amount of alcohol for a 100-pound woman and stop when she became so obviously intoxicated, and why they didn’t check on her to make sure she was recovering.
Of course, the family has our sympathy, but that doesn’t change the fact that Amanda had the responsibility for her actions. She didn’t have the alcohol forced down her throat; she drank of her own free will. In fact, the celebration that night was her transition to a fully adult status in the eyes of the community, the age when no one had Amanda in their care any longer.
The lawsuit bases much of its argument on two points: that everyone involved provided the alcohol to Jax, and that her intoxication created a situation that amounted to custody of Jax. They caused the intoxication, and they failed to meet their custodial responsibilities when she got too drunk to continue drinking. That argument creates a few potential dangers. First, there is no particular mechanism for transfer of custody, nor does it provide limits to the custody. It also imposes non-voluntary liability for the behavior of an otherwise independent adult on others. Both undermine the independence of individuals and minimize personal responsibility.
Amanda Jax should have stopped drinking on her own volition. The bar should have stopped serving her, as their licensing requires. Her friends should have acted to protect her — but that’s a moral, not a legal, liability. Ultimately, the primary actor in Jax’s death was Amanda Jax.
UPDATE and BUMP: The AOL Hot Seat poll question today is on this subject:
Be sure to vote, and keep checking back!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « 1 [2]
No surprise… responsibility for ones actions (and the consequences that include death) have been long “passe” in the US. If a person has unprotected sex with someone they just met in a bar, say on a summer vacation, there is no surprise that there is a possibility of catching HIV or the woman is raped and is murdered. It is a possible consequence period. In the same light, there is no surprise (and it is no secret) that you drink to much, you could very well die of alcohol poisoning. It’s not rocket science, it’s not new. It’s part of that grand concept (which our society had labeled a dirty word) …. SIN!
The question isn’t, who is at fault, the question is on the day you die, “Who do you say that Jesus Christ is and will you be found in Him?” Nothing more, nothing less.
TOPV on March 1, 2008 at 9:01 AM
Perhaps the parents have guilt of their own… one has to ask what “values” did they teach her that would lead her to this behavior?? Just a thought.
TOPV on March 1, 2008 at 9:04 AM
So are these parents irresponsible, stupid, or just greedy?
I say follow the money…
Noble parents have forgiven those who murder their children, but these dirt bags grasp for money from the grieving friends or their child.
Let’s hope they get over it and learn to act like decent people.
Right_of_Attila on March 1, 2008 at 9:10 AM
The article says the bartender bought her the last drink himself, so the idea that staff did not see how drunk she was
doesn’t seem to hold. She passed out at her apartment in the company of another (probably also inebriated) 21 year old. Suing that girl for assuming Amanda would sleep it off like usual seems pointless.
Quisp on March 1, 2008 at 9:14 AM
Assuming that her friends really helped her get intoxicated, then I don’t see why any of you (including Ed) find this such an obvious case.
They definitely should have some of the responsibility for what happened. If they saw that she was drunk and kept on buying her drinks, they are one of the biggest reason why this happened.
mycowardice on March 1, 2008 at 9:16 AM
I can see their point. An intoxicated woman may not be able to control what people are doing to her. I feel comfortable saying her friends murdered a very stupid person.
AbaddonsReign on March 1, 2008 at 9:25 AM
You are ultimately responsible for yourself - this willing abrogation of your basic right to self preservation and attempting to make it the responsibility of others is another example of the indoctrination of the nanny state. Individual accountability is one of the foundations of this great country.
I pray for the parents grief.
Frank Tait on March 1, 2008 at 9:41 AM
Reading back through the comments, and having a discussing with the wife about the story, I can agree that if the friends kept up the peer pressure, kept buying, kept telling her it was all OK, then yeah, they hold (at least some) moral responsibility. Legal liability, though, I don’t believe they do.
The idea that she was not responsible because he was intoxicated, but her freinds were responsible, even though they were drinking, seems ridiculous. Why is one intoxicated person incapable of making a rational choice, but others, just as intoxicated, are capable?
My wife asked if she was legally responsible for me (God forbid) of getting lung cancer because I smoke. She has bought me packs of cigarettes. She places ashtrays in those areas of the house where it is allowed (backyard and garage). You can’t argue that the dangers of smoking aren’t common knowledge. So if I do get the bigC can our kids sue Mom?
If this young woman was forced to drink, then yes, the friends hold legal liability. Otherwise I still say it is all on her shoulders.
Limerick on March 1, 2008 at 9:45 AM
You raise an interesting point with the smoking, but have you considered avoiding the issue entirely by quiting?
AbaddonsReign on March 1, 2008 at 10:07 AM
We all know it’s society’s fault for portraying drunk as “cool”. The alcohol manufacturer’s fault for advertising their product. George Bush’s fault because he stole the election. Global Warming’s fault for making her thirsty from the rise in temperatures…etc. It’s definitely not the parents fault for not sitting down and explaining responsible drinking to their daughter. It’s definitely not the daughter’s fault for drinking that much, I mean she was thirsty and we all know we have no control whatsoever over what we consume. Evil Corporations…George Bush… Cheney
What the heck is our society coming to? Maybe the messiah Obama and/or Hllarycare will fix it all.
Tuari on March 1, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Being from Minnesota I have been following this somewhat. This is tragic…no question about it, but ultimatley it all comes down to parents who feel the need to “blame” someone other than their own daughter. This girl had two DUI’s before she turned 21. If her mother needs someone to blame maybe she should look in the mirror. This young lady obviuously had issues with alcohol that maybe should have been addressed by her family before something like this happened.
Slippery on March 1, 2008 at 10:10 AM
They should sue themselves for poor parenting while they’re at it. What 21 year old craves getting THAT drunk? And knowing where she was going to celebrate, and knowing her intent to get absolutely smashed, where were the parents even if they weren’t “invited” to attend the bar contest? Easy, blaming their daughter’s friends for their own lack of parenting skills.
maverick muse on March 1, 2008 at 10:29 AM
This is the stupidest thing I have every heard. She is 21 years old. an adult. For 21 yrs the parents refused to raise her to be a responsible adult that could say NO, that knew her limit etc.
If you want someone to blame blame the liberals that made the drinking age 21. Before this stupid law many parents taught their children how to drink responsible by allowing their children to have a glass of wine at dinner or a beer at a party. Children built up their tolarance slowly, learned the effects of alchol in a controlled environment with responsible adults, and discovered their limits. Thanks to the nanny states parents can no longer do this and if they do in some states can be thrown in jail. Wine/Beer/whiskey is out there it is the duty of parents to teach their children about it, its effects etc and the best way to do this is doing.
unseen on March 1, 2008 at 10:44 AM
maverick muse on March 1, 2008 at 10:29 AM
maverick muse on March 1, 2008 at 10:29 AM
Binge drinking has grown in scope over the last 20 yrs. In fact it can be traced almost exactly to the passage of age 21 year old drinking laws
unseen on March 1, 2008 at 10:46 AM
Just because they lost a daughter doesn’t mean they can’t make a profit.
JayHaw Phrenzie on March 1, 2008 at 10:59 AM
All those laying blame solely on the girl are missing the point. When a person goes out to with a group of friends and that person is the target focus to get “plastered,” there is some shared responsibility among that group once that mindset is acknowledged.
Think about risk, liability and presumption in a civil case. If you go up in plane with the intent to parachute, and neglect from the pilot causes you death, do you blame only yourself for your death? You choose to go up on your own. Why do you think they make you sign a waiver of liability before you go up?
Or how about if you and your friend are leaving a bar having drank alcohol all night and you are driving. Get into an accident that kills your friend, is your friend solely to blame for his death? He didn’t have to get into the car.
Another case in point, If you play Russian roulette with your friends using someone else’s gun and you lose, although your death should be interpreted as natural selection, isn’t there some shared responsibility in the death?
It was not like she went out with her friends on a random night. She went out on her 21st birthday with the intent of her friends to cause her “harm”(and be honest, that is the purpose and result of getting plastered on a 21st celebration.) albeit not with malicious intent. However, if they partook in a task to continue to provide her with massive amounts of alcohol, they share responsibility of her death.
geckomon on March 1, 2008 at 11:15 AM
I missed that portion of the article because it asked to to register in order to read the second page..
If this girl had 2 DUI’s prior to this, and I have no doubt she did, then it brings up the main point. Personal responsibility..she obviously had no regard for the law and others, or she wouldn’t have gotten drunk and drove a car that not only endangered her own life, but those that could have been hurt or killed by her actions. Did her mother blame others for making her drive drunk? Who was in possession of Amanda during those two episodes?
2 DUI’s in that short period of time could open up the arguement to be made that Amanda had a drinking problem.
Pam on March 1, 2008 at 11:24 AM
Our society seems to have a desire for selective adulthood. She is an adult when she wants to drink; she is not when she is drunk; she is an adult when she wants to have an abortion; she is not competent to handle a doctor telling her what an abortion actually does. By this logic, you are an adult with you grab at the goodies, but a child when you have to face the consequences. Have I stepped through the looking glass?
DrMagnolias on March 1, 2008 at 11:31 AM
well, does this remind anyone else of the fatass who sued mcdonalds because he was fat? that didnt go to well and neither will this. Hopefully the “friends” of the alcholic girl will not have to pay court cost (hell maybe jessie jackson will give them a scholorship like the duke lacross girl who never was raped….)
Donut on March 1, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Likewise, I’m not picking a fight; however, I’ve made all those points on this thread so I’m not sure why you’re directing your comment at me.
Christoph on March 1, 2008 at 11:51 AM
Thank you for describing the golden age before alcohol caused problems.
Christoph on March 1, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Sorry, but no matter how well trained a bartender or other server is or how strict the law, there is no way that barstaff can accurately monitor what’s going on with every person in the bar.
How would you know how many they had before they got to your bar? How many other servers sold them? How many their friends bought for them, or that they bought for friends? You simply couldn’t- not in a crowded bar for each and every individual.
These laws holding bars accountable for the lack of personal responsibility are wrong in all but the most extreme circumstances. It’s nothing more than scapegoating by the neo-prohibitionist set.
Hollowpoint on March 1, 2008 at 12:06 PM
When I was 15, some friends and I got some hard alcohol and got wasted. I was so drunk I don’t remember most of the night. I do remember the look on my mother’s face when my friends finally shoved me through the door. And I remember vomiting all the next day. And I learned from that experience never to get that drunk again, and I haven’t. I’m so sorry for the loss these parents are experiencing. However, it wasn’t this girl’s first time drinking alcohol, 2 DUIs!??? Good Lord, her parents had some responsibility as well. What if she’d killed someone while drunk driving?
4shoes on March 1, 2008 at 12:23 PM
The lawsuit is a symptom of their grief, and definitely an attempt for the family to escape their own responsibility. Personally, when problems are even partly my fault, I get more angry and feel the need to project it onto something or someone else.
Exit questions:
Is there any evidence of a fatal overdose of marijuana??
You’re out, and notice a guy who’s loud, obnoxious and borderline violent…is he drunk or stoned??
budorob on March 1, 2008 at 12:35 PM
Sure, and friends should be held liable for murder if they let their friend go into a dangerous neighborhood and get killed.
How absurd.
spmat on March 1, 2008 at 12:49 PM
I’m going to go against my usual attitude on this one, a little. If your friend is obviously so trashed that she is no longer thinking clearly and probably on the verge of blacking out, then the responsibility does in a sense switch over to the people buying her drinks and pressuring her to drink them. The problem is that the responsibility to not get to the point where she was trashed beyond reason is on the the girl herself.
I don’t think a money award is in order but I think it’s a stretch to say her friends are in no way responsible for pressuring their already incoherent friend to guzzle drinks that probably were fruity and seemed to cause no risk to an inexperienced drinker. I’ve never been a fan of friends encouraging their friends to get trashed beyond belief. Pressure somebody to do a shot once in a while? Sure, no problem. But this binge drinking thing on 21st birthdays is just insane. If these people didn’t know she was over a .4 BAC, then they were just not thinking clearly themselves. Liable? I don’t think so.
Tough one though. No criminal or civil repercussions are appropriate in my opinion, but her friends certainly do have something to feel bad about for the rest of their lives, as I’m sure they will.
Metro on March 1, 2008 at 1:28 PM
I don’t buy this. Parents can buy their children alcohol if they choose. There’s no law against it.
I can only speak for Texas laws.
You aren’t supposed to serve people who have already been drinking, so that shouldn’t be an issue.
Unless they’re paying with cash, the girl should just have one tab. It’s very easy to look up a person’s tab to see how many drinks they’d had.
And even if they are paying with cash, it’s still the server’s responsibility. If she was being served by a waiter, then she’d only have one waiter. It’s bad waiting etiquette to steal someone else’s customer. If she was being served by bartenders, then they’d all be responsible.
A person cannot buy more than one drink without having more than one person at the bar to pick up the extra drink(s). If a place learns that a person is sneaking drinks to someone else, then those people get kicked out.
I’m speaking from experience. Yes, you can, and if you miss them at the bar, then someone can catch them throwing up in the bathroom or staggering away from/to the bathroom.
The truth is, without legal penalty an establishment has no reason to cut off a drunk. Drunks may be annoying, but they tip really well and spend a lot of money.
There are a lot people claiming the friends should be responsible, but the friends were likely drunk as well. Bartenders, waiters and managers are sober, trained and responsible for what they sell whether its bad oysters or liquid poison.
These laws came about for a reason. My certification training required that I learn that reason. If alcohol is to be legally consumed in public, then society has an interest in seeing that consumption regulated.
Servers are in the best position to regulate that consumption. No other position can.
Is this really a question? Or is this your advocation of legalized pot use?
Esthier on March 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM
As of this posting the shows 54% saying “No!” That’s secular progressive thinking for you. No moral judgments. No judgments on personal conduct.
Wildcatter1980 on March 1, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Many,many years ago I worked as a Bartender while in collage. I do not drink, but I know for a fact no one can make a drunk stop drinking, they will fight you for one last drink. If I wouldn’t serve them anymore they would go somewhere else. If she had two DUI’s before she was 21 the girl obviously had a problem. The parents want to blame someone, the blame lays at the feet of the drunk who will not stop.
calgrammy on March 1, 2008 at 2:47 PM
The poll isn’t about a moral obligation. It’s about a legal one.
Esthier on March 1, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Weren’t all her friends drunk too?
BadgerHawk on March 1, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Also, as one who has completed the 21 shots on said birthday, I can reasonably assume she wasn’t at the bar buying any of her drinks, so the bartenders wouldn’t have known she was so far gone.
BadgerHawk on March 1, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Also, I read somewhere else that the girl’s parents didn’t talk to her at all before she went out that night. If they feel that their daughter’s friends are the kind of people that would poison their daughter, they didn’t seem too concerned prior to the group going out. They sure moved from grieving to retribution/cashing in pretty quickly.
BadgerHawk on March 1, 2008 at 3:17 PM
“They helped her drink even when she wanted to quit,” says the mother. How does she know she wanted to quit? The article doesn’t state anyone was pressuring her to drink, only that they were buying her drinks. Which seems like a normal thing to do when you’re at a bar celebrating her birthday.
She was intoxicated, so her friends were supposed to leave her at the bar? No, when your friend has too much to drink at a bar, you take him home.
Right, mom.
Sounds like they were used to seeing her in this state, and that’s why they weren’t overly concerned seeing her passed out and puking.
wahhaw on March 1, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Esthier:
Speaking from experience, when someone buys a group a round of shots they don’t put it on a tab. They just run the card. Also, friends take turns buying the rounds so one person isn’t stuck with a $300 bill at the end of the night. Also, as mentioned earlier, no one is buying their own drinks on their 21st birthday.
I’ve never, not once in my life, been at a bar and had them require other people come to the bar to pick up the drink that I just bought. I just buy the round, and if I can carry it all myself then I carry it all myself.
I, or my friends, have been kicked out a bar before for being too drunk (unable to stand up on our own or throwing up), but it’s a bouncer making the rounds who’s looking for people that are too drunk to continue, not the bartenders.
BadgerHawk on March 1, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Esthier,
I’m a staunch adversary of the War on Drugs. So, if that makes me an advocate, fine. I’m merely pointing out the absence of logic in our society, like the ritual of drinking 21 shots on your 21st birthday. It doesn’t make any sense to give one freedom with implied personal responsibility while simultaneously prohibiting another freedom that is known to have lesser consequences.
budorob on March 1, 2008 at 4:12 PM
And it’s all off topic.
Then you either 1. Don’t live in Texas, or 2. Have never been to a bar that follows the law.
Esthier on March 1, 2008 at 4:19 PM
I live in Wisconsin, and am stationed in Alabama. The county I live in here in AL has no alcohol on Sundays and no tap beer allowed, and I’ve still never run into the problem you stated of needing the people I buy a drink for to come up to the bar and get it.
BadgerHawk on March 1, 2008 at 4:27 PM
On what planet?
You may need to get out a bit more.
What bars do you go to where everybody in a group collectively heads to the bar together for their drinks? Nobody buys a round where you live?
How strange.
Professor Blather on March 1, 2008 at 5:49 PM
Spent last weekend in the DFW area. The bars there operated just like bars everywhere else in the country.
I repeat: how very strange. So when it’s Bob’s turn to buy a round, he takes his seven buddies up to get their beers with him where you live?
Must be very crowded at the bar.
Professor Blather on March 1, 2008 at 5:51 PM
Thank you.
BadgerHawk on March 1, 2008 at 6:40 PM
So, I now need to vet the responsibility and rationality of all my friends and acquaintances as there’s a good likelihood that I’ll be responsible for them doing something stupid and harmful?
Because there’s a lot of damn stupid people out there. What if I just bought a girl a drink, and she dies later from some alcohol related accident? Do I need to go turn myself in as an accessory to murder at that point?
Or is it just your friends who should have to force you to stop doing something harmful, or suffer the consequences if they don’t? How good of “friends” do I have to be with someone before I’m legally liable for their stupidity?
What a freaking nightmare. I’m sorry she had so much to drink she died, but unless someone was actually holding her down and forcing drinks down her, or someone slipped her a mickey or some such; I don’t see blaming anyone who was with her when she drank that much.
I’m not saying nobody should feel bad about not having prevented this, but there’s a lot of bad things that you don’t see coming but could have prevented. Those aren’t legal liabilities under normal circumstances.
gekkobear on March 2, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Bartender “certification”? “Training”? Dude, did you work at T.G.I. Fridays, or something?
I bartended for years without ever taking a class. Me and my Mr. Boston’s guide.
MikeZero on March 2, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]