Where does personal responsibility start? Update: AOL Hot Seat Poll Added
posted at 8:15 am on March 1, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
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 Next »
Ed this is like saying that because I had a very wild night and ralphed, plus I have a hang over the next day (since that is also alcohol poisoning), That I can now sue anyone who sold me the Booze.
Oh good Lord. people can’t smoke anywhere, now it will get to the point where youcan’t drink anywhere for fear of being sued.
upinak on February 29, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Nanny state, here we come!!!
MyImamToldMeToDoIt on February 29, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Hmm, not sure where I come down on this. I suppose if her friends kept buying rounds and in doing so, insulated her from the staff of the bar so they could not cut her off, there might be some liability.
trubble on February 29, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Sad story. Nothing to add to your analysis Captain.
VolMagic on February 29, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Mankato…hm…that’s where that ugly boy the Ingalls took in got hooked on smack. It’s all Minnesota’s fault.
/no sympathy for stupidity
splink on February 29, 2008 at 6:31 PM
Sweet, now I’ll have a legal defense for not buying my friends drinks at the bar!
NTWR on February 29, 2008 at 6:32 PM
The bartenders might not have seen her, but aren’t the bouncer(s) supposed to be keeping an eye out for the overly-drunk?
Frozen Tex on February 29, 2008 at 6:32 PM
Unless somebody was forcing the drinks down her throat she, and only she, is responsible for her death.
Afterimage on February 29, 2008 at 6:34 PM
No Bouncers usually keep the peace and only take care of the drunkards if they are throwing up to the point people are complaining.
Bartenders and Bouncers also (depending on State) keep a journal for the night, for tips, problematic people and other things just in case they DO get called into court.
Very useful to have and saves butt!
upinak on February 29, 2008 at 6:37 PM
You read the article and find out this 21-year old had two previous DUI arrests. But her Mom blames her friends for this. If this Mom wants to throw around blame, she may as well include herself in it– I’m sure she enabled her dauther.
Security Mom on February 29, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Hmmm, Many of us have been in situations where we drank too much for out own good. But what if her friends kept plying her with drinks and she was too intoxicated to realize she was in any danger? I’m no nanny stater but the friends have some responsibility here.
sweeper on February 29, 2008 at 6:39 PM
I spent a couple years in the bar business and while I can’t speak to specific laws in whatever state this is, as a practical matter it’s impossible to look into every corner of every booth and assess everyone. When you’re bouncing you’re looking for big movements indicating fights, people standing on furniture or basically anything that’ll hurt themselves or ruin someone else’s good time. The servers (cocktail waitresses)would have a much closer look. If one of the friends walks up to the bar and brings the round of drinks back, so no one on staff ever gets a close look, it’d be easy to hide.
Your best bet is to have someone stationed near the bathrooms. Every one has to go and it’s the best place to catch people staggering, etc. All I’m saying is if it could be proven that the friends made a conscious effort to shield this person from the staff so they couldn’t cut her off, then maybe they do assume some liability. Again, a big “IF” and big “MAYBE”.
trubble on February 29, 2008 at 6:40 PM
no offense but isn’t this the destruction of adult hood – you therefore from here on in are no longer allowed or expected to be responsible for yourself removing you from an adult to what amounts to childhood for the rest of your existence?
Defector01 on February 29, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Yes. Absolutely NOT a legal liability, because as soon as they have a legal duty to protect you, they have legal grounds to restrict your individual freedom.
petefrt on February 29, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Getting drunk is never a good idea. The culture we have created that says it is okay to get drunk, is a travesty. I know I am in a minority, and Amanda Jax is responsible for her own actions. However, I see her friends as accomplices to the act. The should share the blame to some degree.
jya lai on February 29, 2008 at 6:43 PM
A slippery slope, you are right, if someone outside of the person’s direct influence declares them unfit to set their own course, then they are allowed to declare custody and direct that person? oooh, no way. How many control freaks of either party would just love to get their greasy little paws on that action.
bbz123 on February 29, 2008 at 6:44 PM
I used to drink a lot in my mid late 20’s I worked 3:30 to midnight in a factory and there wasn’t much else to do after work so off to the bar we went. I was out at the bars and clubs 3 nights a week, drank several pitchers of beer a night, or at least a dozen tequila and orange juice’s, and the only person to “blame” was me. I knew I was drinking and I knew how much I was drinking. Just because somebody put a drink in front of me didn’t mean I had to drink it. When I decided to stop drinking for the night, that was it, nobody was going to make me drink another drop. If she couldn’t control herself then she shouldn’t have been drinking in the first place. The only person to blame is her.
Afterimage on February 29, 2008 at 6:44 PM
What happened to the ‘Age of Majority’?
Limerick on February 29, 2008 at 6:45 PM
I don’t know if they are legally responsible in any way, but the friends had a responsibility as FRIENDS to make sure their friend, who they were treating to a night out, got home okay. My buds look after each other and yeah we cut each other off when someone has had enough. I’d be feeling guilty as hell if I were one of them. The poor girl is mostly to blame for her own actions, of course, but her friends let her down, big-time.
RW Wacko on February 29, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Fair point, but she had a 0.46 BAC. I don’t see her getting there without help.
sweeper on February 29, 2008 at 6:47 PM
“Friends” sometimes do this to see what happens. If someone can’t pour their own beer or wine and hit the right glass, their real friends should cut them off, not pour for them. There is that whole “blacking out” thing, after all.
NTWR on February 29, 2008 at 6:50 PM
This is interesting, and I’m not sure where my thoughts lie.
If I, as an adult, were to agree to sex while drugged by my friends, was the encounter of my own free will, or was it not, because my will was impaired by the drug?
Alcohol is a drug. A person drinking alcohol has impaired thinking, and is apt to do things they might not otherwise do. Drink enough, and your thinking becomes impaired to the point of death. [I'm a teatotaller because of that -- both my parents drank excessively, and would apologize profusely afterward, but there it was...]
When does the ingestion of enough alcohol impair one enough that others must take charge?
We already have on the books adverse results to bartenders who served “overly” intoxicated people only to have them go out onto the streets and kill innocent themselves (and the occasional innocent bystander).
trubble has the point. To the extent that there was malice involved in over-stewing this kid, there will the blame lie.
unclesmrgol on February 29, 2008 at 6:51 PM
My friends and I had a moral responsibility to each other to keep us away from the kind of chicks in that picture. ‘Cept when we were “whaling”, of course.
HerrMorgenholz on February 29, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Captain Ed,
The young woman’s parents should also include themselves as defendants. There is absolutely no excuse for parents not to teach responsibility to their children. Granted, their daughter was of legal age to drink, indeed she and her friends seem to revel in that act. Since she was of legal age, she engaged in legal activity. If her parents had taught her responsibility, she’d know she had to pay the consequences.
BTW, both of my parents were alcoholics and I have never engaged in drinking parties. That includes my time in the US Navy.
SeniorD on February 29, 2008 at 6:54 PM
heh.
NTWR on February 29, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Interesting point…….
“Your too drunk so I am not going to serve you and you are now in my custody to keep you safe.”
(a few hours later)
“Hey thanks for helping me, I’m sober now, I need to go….”
“No….”
Seven Percent Solution on February 29, 2008 at 6:54 PM
So if my motorhead group has 5 members who wear helmets, and one who refuses, and that one cracks a telephone pole with his head, the five other riders are responsible? We let him in the group. We didn’t hogtie him when he wouldn’t wear a helmet. We invited him to ride along. How is that any different then drinking?
Limerick on February 29, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Ouch. Captain, this is totally painful. I screwed up a word in my post above, and there’s no Disqus to let me fix it! I meant
unclesmrgol on February 29, 2008 at 6:54 PM
People get that drunk all the time without help. Just in the past couple months 2 women were arrested here in Oregon with BAC close to that. Again, nobody was pouring the drinks down her throat or holding a gun to her head to make her. She drank them of her own free will, she is to blame.
Afterimage on February 29, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Complicated situation. On one hand, people should be smart enough not to get drunk. On the other hand, giving a drunk person even more alcohol is reckless endangerment at the very least.
Obvious solution: catch your kids drinking, beat their ass until your walls are red with blood. Consider shock therapy if you catch them looking at daddy’s bottle the wrong way. They won’t be able to sit down for a couple of years and may suffer depression, withdrawl, or develop sado-masochistic sexual habits but at least they’re still alive.
Darth Executor on February 29, 2008 at 6:56 PM
If there were some sort of visual indicator button drinkers could wear that showed when they were in black-out mode it would be helpful.
Some people act totally normal but don’t remember a thing the next day. Those are the folks who can really get into trouble with the fire water.
NTWR on February 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM
I hear you, though don’t fully agree. I know when I was younger and weekend nights could involve a lot of drinking, it was usually helpful to be out with friends. Friends who knew when to cut someone off, keep a buddy out of a fight, call a cab, or let a friend crash on their couch.
Intoxication does cause you to loose control and judgment. The more sober friends are supposed to help out. If all her friends were about 21 years-old there might not have been much experience available.
The girl probably lost much of her judgement by the 7th shot. I’d rather not see the law involved, but her friends deserve some repercussion beyond mere guilt.
dedalus on February 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM
If someone told a retarded person they’d be safe if they jumped off the building, and the retarded person jumps, should the person get away with it because “nobody forced the retard to jump”? Get drunk enough and you no longer have any ability to control yourself. If someone’s stupid enough to keep giving alcohol to a person who’s obviously had enough they need a good ass kicking.
Darth Executor on February 29, 2008 at 6:58 PM
In California and many other states, a woman who has sex while drunk is said to have been raped because she was unable to form the mental capacity to give consent. (California, shamefully, also finds the man guilty of rape if both partners are intoxicated, but I digress….)
So to address Ed’s point, here, the woman was allegedly so intoxicated that she likewise would have been unable to make her own decision about whether to continue drinking. If that is true, her friends do bear a moral and perhaps legal responsibility for her death. They bought her drinks; she didn’t buy them herself. And if she was given those drinks and encouraged to consume them while she was in a state whereby she couldn’t form her own decisions, then her friends are responsible.
You know what, though, this case is a lot more mundane than even that. The suit is alleging that the friends are liable, not for helping her get so drunk that she died, but for not helping her while she was sick. The liability that comes from inaction is a pretty well-trod area of the law, and I’m sure Minnesota law is probably quite settled on this point. The lawsuit here is claiming that she had vomited and laid passed-out (clearly in need of medical attention, they argue) but the friends did nothing.
Ordinarily people don’t have a (legal) duty to help people who are in need of medical care. But in most jurisdictions if you assume care of someone but then abandon care you can be liable. So, let’s say you’re sick and I say I’ll drive you to the hospital, but instead I drive to the Taco Bell, then go get some coffee at Starbucks, all with you in the car dying. If you die, I could be liable since I took on the responsibility of taking you to the hospital. Once I had that responsibility, I had a duty to act reasonably in doing so.
So, in the end, I don’t think this case is that ground breaking or controversial. It will come down to the nitty gritty of the facts, and what happened before and after the woman passed out.
Nessuno on February 29, 2008 at 6:59 PM
2 previous DUIs before aged 21?? This wasn’t this chick’s first time at the alcohol rodeo. The fact that we’re even CONTEMPLATING blaming a bunch of kids for her own drinking is scary in the least.
Sorry for her parents, but they don’t have a legal leg to stagger on.
tickleddragon on February 29, 2008 at 7:02 PM
From my experience .46 is a huge number. I’ve known people hospitalized with lower numbers than that, and they were blotto before the ambulance came.
dedalus on February 29, 2008 at 7:03 PM
If you go over that w/o hospitalization, than you are one serious hardcore drinker, and have been at it for many years. A 21 year old at .46 is pretty extreme, imo.
RW Wacko on February 29, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Sorry, I stopped reading at the Captain’s use of the word tragedy.
This young woman’s death was not a tragedy. She brought it upon herself. A tragedy is an earthquake, hurricane, typhoon, etc.
A tragedy cannot come from people. It can only come from actions or events that partake in no personal responsibility.
If you claim this woman’s death as a tragedy, then you can claim 9/11 as a tragedy. Meaning that no one, or nothing is responsible for the events that followed.
I’m sorry, but in my world, words do have meaning.
Blarg the Destroyer on February 29, 2008 at 7:16 PM
I wonder if the girl was still living with her parents, on their insurance plan, etc. If so, wouldn’t she still be considered a dependent, even though was 21? If that were true, her parents would bear more responsibility than anyone else in this case.
fourstringfuror on February 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM
She was 21 not 12. Her fault. End of story. The “rite of passage” of drinking for one’s 21st birthday is just that, a rite of passage. Her prior DUIs are going to be a huge factor in this suit.
And they say spanking’s bad for kids, sheesh!
Califemme on February 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM
Although she had lost her judgement when she was drunk, it was a forseeable consequence of her taking the first few drinks.
Lots of people get drunk and pass out after throwing up. It’s hard to see how her friends could be expected to perform medical monitoring on her.
Her parents ought to be quietly ashamed of themselves.
pedestrian on February 29, 2008 at 7:19 PM
A bureacrat’s dream come true–no one bears personal accountability or personal responsibility in anything.
Let the blame game and lawsuits fly.
Pathetic.
Montana on February 29, 2008 at 7:21 PM
People with mental retardation generally didn’t choose to be that way. People who get drunk do.
Montana on February 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Zactly. Better to have ass pain than dead.
Califemme on February 29, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Just read something in the article, something truly frightening:
Social change. People, this is disturbing.
fourstringfuror on February 29, 2008 at 7:24 PM
We’re headed in that direction.
The good news (?) is that sooner or later those pesky terrorists we keep forgetting about – cuz we’re busying suing each other over stuff we ought to be responsible for – will just go ahead and get frisky and nuke something.
And then all the nanny state silliness will vanish. Reality always trumps ideology. When the world reminds us that it can be a harsh place, we’ll toughen up.
The sad part is that history already taught us this lesson a few hundred times.
Professor Blather on February 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM
I was all set to denounce the mother for her emotionalism over cool reason.
Heartless? No. If the daughter had learned less go with her feelings and more personal responsibility, maybe she wouldn’t be pushing up daisies. 2 DUIs before 21 isn’t the parents fault necessarily. It certainly is her daughter’s.
However, then I read Nessuno’s comment and I thought he made a good point:
I don’t know anything about the state of the law in Minnesota, but his point seems reasonable, even to someone like myself who believes so strongly in personal responsibility, I believe parents should do a better job of teaching it to their kids and spend less time blaming others when their kids’ foul actions cost them dearly.
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM
Change? I was looking for Hope, myself. Eh. Whatever.
HerrMorgenholz on February 29, 2008 at 7:27 PM
Oh dear God. I didn’t see the second page.
That sort of changes things, doesn’t it? This wasn’t some naive teetotaler who’d never sipped a beer.
I wonder who was responsible for the two times she got caught drunk driving. (Or the likely dozens that she did it without getting caught).
I wonder who would have been responsible if she’d killed someone.
Professor Blather on February 29, 2008 at 7:29 PM
Denial is a powerful tool the parent can use to offset the blame she must accept for the death of her daughter. Experience tells me if she got 2 DUI’s before she was 21, she was probably doing plenty of drinking and may have had a problem with alcohol.
Zelsdorf Ragshaft on February 29, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Which is my question as well – was she living with her parents? Was she still a dependent? Her parents have a lot of audacity trying to blame others for their child’s actions.
fourstringfuror on February 29, 2008 at 7:31 PM
Losing a young person from a preventable tragic death is devastating. Amanda Jax was an adult who made a poor choice. Laws are like money to some people, the more they have, the more they want. If we don’t take responsibilities for our actions, it will be legislated for us in a manner we will not like. In a society like that, it won’t matter if our next president is Obama, Clinton, McCain, Paul, or Castro.
vortex on February 29, 2008 at 7:33 PM
I am basing a portion of this on MI law. I can understand the bar being sued. They should have cut the party off. One of the liabilities to any establishment that serves alcohol is that they can and will be held liable in the event of death. That is as far as MI law goes.
I do not see how the “friends” can be held liable, nor do I feel they will be. This is an unfortunate tragedy that could have been prevented, but as Ed said..when does personal responsibility come in? What is the next step? Sue everyone in the club that didn’t stop her from drinking?
I am sorry for their loss.
Pam on February 29, 2008 at 7:37 PM
Pam, vortex et al., according to Nessuno, you’re all arguing the wrong part.
Whether this is a strong or weak claim I don’t know. But for example. A person who cut their wrists and was bleeding profusely is clearly responsible for their actions. However. If a person sees this person bleeding, like several friends, and do nothing… is there liability?
That seems a closer analogy. She was passed out and had vomited and apparently her friends did nothing. Why they did nothing, whether that was reasonable, and did they have any duty to do anything will be questions the lawsuit seeks to answer.
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Blame everyone else, but yourself
Kini on February 29, 2008 at 7:48 PM
The bar should counter-sue the parents for raising a such an immature, stupid kid who’d get so intoxicated as to die, hence leaving a stain on their establishment.
Send_Me on February 29, 2008 at 7:50 PM
If elected, the obamanator can ‘change’ all that.
Seriously, it is horribly sad to bury your own child – legal adult or not. But the parent’s lawsuit is vindictive and misguided. It will not assuage their grief or resurrect their dead child. Or teach anyone a lesson.
Most people here got it right – the young woman was responsible for the stupid actions that led to her death. She’s 21. A legal adult. And the lawsuit blindly assumes that her friends were more sober & in superior control of not only their own actions, but the dead woman’s. Ever try to argue with a drunk?
Perhaps the parent’s grief could be used to understand how they raised a daughter who condones & participates going to saloons and drinking alcohol. Other parents might be interested – before it’s too late for their child.
locomotivebreath1901 on February 29, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Thanks for pointing that out. I was going to say the lawsuit looked like an ACLU ploy, but declined in favor of a less partisan post.
It’s a test case to undermine individualism, individual freedom and individual responsibility.
petefrt on February 29, 2008 at 7:51 PM
Her friends were idiots. Do they share some responsibility? Absolutely- they weren’t watching out for their friend, a 21 year old. I don’t care how often she drank before, I’ve yet to meet a 21 year old who really knows how to hold their liquor or what their limit is.
LEGAL responsibility? No. No matter how much one’s buddies might enjoy Russian Roulette and encourage you to join, you’d still be the dummy pulling the trigger.
I also have a big problem with the notion of holding bars responsible. I’ve been completely wasted in bars, but being a seasoned drinker, I can hold it together long enough to order a drink without appearing that drunk. Furthermore, if someone more sober orders the drinks, how are they supposed to know?
Hollowpoint on February 29, 2008 at 7:53 PM
Irrelevant. This does not excuse the behavior of others.
Darth Executor on February 29, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Nah. They’re too busy defending known criminals. Uh, I mean the Jena 6.
fourstringfuror on February 29, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Professor– Seriously…
What if her friends were also drunk– if Jax was considered so intoxicated to no longer be responsible for herself, what if her friends were also intoxicated, how are they now responsible for her? Should only the sober people be held responsible?
I truly understand the moral failings the “friends” had in this– women in particular look out for eachother when out (oh, the good ol days when my friend held my hair up so that no barf got on it…). Shall we hold friends responsible if a friend shacks up with a nasty dude and gets pregnant (she was drunk, you should have stopped her!)?
Now, if it is truly only about not taking her to get medical care, yes, that’s another issue– but still where exactly do we want societal responsibility to go? In my young adulthood, if I took every passed out friend to the hospital… you think healthcare costs are high now???
Adulthood should mean you know not to get too wasted to be able to control yourself. Sometimes it doesn’t work that way, and there doesn’t have to be someone to blame. Other than yourself.
And yes, two DUI prior to being of legal age to drink are a bit of a sign that she wasn’t exactly unfamiliar with the throwing up & passing out regime.
Security Mom on February 29, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Perhaps, instead of pointing fingers and trying to decide who to sue in an effort to drive this “social change,” perhaps we as Americans could stop being so freaking obsessed with being 21 and getting completely sloshed. Just an idea.
fourstringfuror on February 29, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Christoph, I am answering Ed’s question and the question asked was not out of line based on this:
It sounds to me like they are attempting to suggest that this was some form of hazing:
And no, I don’t have a legal responsibility for a person that cuts their wrists in front of me..I may have a moral obligation, but not a legal one.
Pam on February 29, 2008 at 8:01 PM
Tragedy, going back to Aristotle, is something that is usually brought about by a hero’s misjudgment. While this seems to lack other elements of tragedy (a great figure, multiple lives ruined, cosmic implications) her hand in her own demise would make it more likely, rather than less likely, to be tragic.
I do agree that there is common use of the word “tragic” that means “very unfortunate”. In that case I’d agree that her death is a cause for less grieving than each of the lives on 9/11.
dedalus on February 29, 2008 at 8:02 PM
A very good question. Kind of takes the fun out of being a designated driver, doesn’t it?
I BELIEVE DRUNK AND DRUGGED PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS… because they made the choice to be intoxicated and negative consequences of same are predictable.
Kill someone when drunk? Responsible. Rape someone when drunk? Responsible. Why is this young lady not responsible then for her own death?
As Ed points out, she is.
Which doesn’t change the fact that if her friends knew she needed medical attention and didn’t get it, they could have some liability.
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 8:03 PM
After the parents win, can the bar counter sue for their negligence in raising a daughter who is unable to make adult decisions as a 21 year old?
This case boils down to parent guilt / greed and lawyer greed. We need some serious tort reform if this country is to survive
Conservative Voice on February 29, 2008 at 8:07 PM
I pretty much completely agree.
dedalus on February 29, 2008 at 8:07 PM
Pam, that’s only partially true:
So as a rule there is no affirmative duty to rescue, but if you caused the situation: i.e., you provided the person the razor blades with knowledge they were in a crisis and were a danger to themselves, or, arguably, if you gave someone large amounts of alcohol and they experienced medical problems as a result, they you may commit a tort by not providing aid.
In the end, that’s why they have courts: To thrash out situations like this.
I don’t think this lawsuit is frivolous.
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Christoph–
I have a funny memory of this sort of thing (designated driver). Go back a few years (well, quite a few) to my 21st bday. Our designated driver got arrested for DUI. He had really only had one drink, probably wasn’t really over the legal limit per se, but he was underage, and that did it for him.
The only reason he got pulled over is because half the carload of girls was screaming for him to go right, half screaming for him to go left, so he swerved around before making a decision. And then he followed my advice to refuse the breathelyzer. (Hey– I was PRELAW!!) But I guess that’s what he gets for listening to a bunch of drunk girls!
Security Mom on February 29, 2008 at 8:11 PM
*they you = then you
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 8:12 PM
So sad… the old “I’m going to celebrate becoming an adult by showing how immature I am,” routine.
Here’s a note to any younger readers, you show you’re an adult by making good decisions and sticking to them, not by overindulging in so-called “adult” activities. Pretty much anyone is capable of having sex and drinking alcohol. A mature adult knows when not to do those things and does it responsibly.
taznar on February 29, 2008 at 8:19 PM
People who are mentally handicapped don’t choose to be that way. She willingly went out and drank alochol and ended up dead because she was stupid and didn’t quit when she should have. I’ve been extremely drunk several times in my life and I still knew what was going on. Like I said earlier, I used to go out 3 or 4 nights a week some weeks and drink quite a bit. It wasn’t unusual for me to put away 6 or more pitchers of beer in a matter of 3 or 4 hours. I know alcohol affects some people differently but I’m still not buying it as an excuse. She had 2 DUI’s before 21, she was an idiot.
Afterimage on February 29, 2008 at 8:21 PM
That’s the question. If Jax isn’t responsible for her actions because she was drunk, how can the friends be held responsible for their behavior either? Unfortunately, everyone involved was a dumbass. Poor Jax just took the dumbass game too far.
Awful, Awful. I hope her parents can somehow find their peace with this.
BacaDog on February 29, 2008 at 8:22 PM
Afterimage, I don’t buy it as an excuse either. At some point, the person is “sober enough” to be responsible for their own action, and that action is to buy and consume that drink which makes them too drunk to think straight. Anything that happens after that point is (in my mind) a direct result of that decision they made while still “sober enough”.
In other words, if you choose to relinquish control to alcohol, you should be held responsible for any consequences of that decision -that includes anything you do while drunk. Blaming it on the alcohol (and everyone else around) after the fact just doesn’t cut it.
taznar on February 29, 2008 at 8:49 PM
I hardly drink now, but back in my 20s, I’d been so drunk once I couldn’t have properly looked after myself. In fact, the night I’m thinking about, I had friends who did, bless them. I was fortunate.
If, however, I’d drunk myself to death, I just can’t see me blaming others for it.
I don’t have any DUIs. Her having two before coming of age leads me to think the problem was there with her and not elsewhere, at least for the most part.
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Hear, hear!
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 8:53 PM
I drank in college, but never that much. I didn’t know until after college that passing out was that much of a danger sign and could be a prelude to death. Probably these young adults didn’t know that, either. Any of you parents out there, tell this to your kids whether or not you think they’ll drink. They could save someone’s life.
JimC on February 29, 2008 at 9:06 PM
I hope you were making refrence to the fact that it may occasionally occur that a person dies because of an alcohol related accident on their 21st birthday.
Otherwise there are were roughly 17,000 fatalities in the last year I could find statistics compiled for. By no means occasional.
PresidenToor on February 29, 2008 at 9:47 PM
We took my college roommate out on his 21st birthday and he got so drunk he crapped his pants.
There is NO WAY I’m taking responsibility for that one.
miles on February 29, 2008 at 9:48 PM
Mankato? Was Laura Ingalls there?
JohnW on February 29, 2008 at 9:52 PM
Having had two DUIs prior to legal age means she may very well have passed out before when out with her drinking buddies and caused them to treat her condition without the seriousness it warranted. She may also have been trying, with her friends’ encouragement, to top her previous levels of drinking to “celebrate” her 21st. Those levels may have already been on the high side which could explain the eventual .46 BAC. I went to high school with guys who were having blackouts from excessive drinking when we were seniors so it’s not an unreasonable scenario.
Extending your legal responsibility to your drinking companions for their behavior is an logical extension of holding bars responsible for the consequences of the behavior of their drunken customers. It is mandating moral responsibility to others in a way that would be anathema to those who fear the moral mandates of the “impending theocracy”. This young lady and her friends made bad choices all night long, eventually even a fatal one, but are we ready to make those bad choices illegal ones?
inmypajamas on February 29, 2008 at 10:06 PM
Stop. No. She was an adult. She “was in the care of” herself. I completely agree with your analysis, and I don’t understand how anyone who ascribes meaning and moral weight to “personal responsibility” could do otherwise.
Splunge on February 29, 2008 at 10:23 PM
I agree with Ed the only person responsible is Ms. Jax. I’ve been drunk off my butt and no one could force a drink down my throut without holding me down. Her parents just want to sue people so they can feel good since they didn’t teach her moral boundaries.
limowilliam on February 29, 2008 at 10:24 PM
From what I vaguely recall from my Business Law class lo these many years ago, the quote above is exactly what this was.
Moral issues and legal issues are 2 completely different things.
My law professor pointed out that if someone is drowning you do, indeed, have a moral responsibility to save the person’s life but you have no legal responsibility to do so. In fact you could, if crass enough, offer him or her a glass of water, point and laugh or simply walk away – from a legal perspective.
This would be akin to offering a glass of water to a drowning person which is a moral decision not a legal one.
BowHuntingTexas on February 29, 2008 at 10:26 PM
Fat drunk & stupid is no way to go through life. – Dean Wormer.
Alden Pyle on February 29, 2008 at 10:27 PM
Clueless.
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 11:04 PM
Missing the point. UNLESS you were part of creating the hazardous condition, in which case you now have a legal responsibility.
If you come across someone with an arrow in their ass, you got no responsibility… but if it’s one of your arrows and you shout it, you damn right you do.
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM
*shot
Christoph on February 29, 2008 at 11:06 PM
If someone walked into a bar and saw her obviously sloshed and did nothing but offered to buy her a drink, you’d be right.
But to go with your drowning victim, you might be in legal trouble if you invited someone to go swimming and when they got into trouble encouraged them to swim toward a rip tide.
This case probably constitutes a moral, not legal, problem. However, if the others had malicious intentions and she was incapacitated maybe there could be a case. I’m not a lawyer though.
dedalus on February 29, 2008 at 11:22 PM
Let’s not forget that the article you are reading is from the Star and Sickle newspaper.
Can anbody say denial?
RedKnight on February 29, 2008 at 11:36 PM
When I was in HS I came very close to killing 2 of my best friends, when I almost wrapped a car around a tree, in an attempt to beat a speed record among classmates down a very twisty road.
And we were not even drinking.
That said Parents can teach responsibility however children still need to learn it.
It took about 2 hours before I started to shake and realize how close to death I came and more importantly that I almost killed 2 friends of mine, in an attempt to beat a stupid speed record.
F15Mech on February 29, 2008 at 11:55 PM
That being said the responsibility lies with me first and foremost, and my best friends in the car for telling me what a great idea…lets do it.
Nowhere are the parents to blame. If any of our parents knew about “our road trip”, when it happened, they would be facing murder charges because they would have killed us for being so stupid.
F15Mech on March 1, 2008 at 12:07 AM
Can anyone say stupid dishonest reckless mother?
Christoph on March 1, 2008 at 12:30 AM
By the time you’re 21 don’t you already know your limit?
just sayin’
- The Cat
MirCat on March 1, 2008 at 2:09 AM
I think it will be difficult to prove that her friends knew she needed help. Many college kids have seen people throw up and/or pass out from drinking, but far less have known anyone to actually die from it.
Depending on the state law, your question shouldn’t even matter. I was certified to serve alcohol, and legally we were required to cut people off long before they were wasted. We were also trained to count drinks and approximate the size of the person in order to calculate a BAC.
At that point, it isn’t a matter of cutting off a drunk person on the verge of dying, it’s merely a point of cutting someone off who’s barely over the legal limit.
If the bartender or waiter had followed those rules, a death like that would not have been possible without bar hoping.
As someone who could have been held legally liable for a drunk’s actions, I didn’t like being held liable, but overall, I think it’s helpful. Those who are certified to sell alcohol are trained to spot those in trouble. They have no financial obligation to cut someone off, but their legal obligation is probably better for society.
I believe the parents have a legitimate suit against place she drank; however, if her friends were shielding her from the place, making it difficult for them to monitor her, it would make sense to me that the place has a legitimate suit against her friends.
Esthier on March 1, 2008 at 2:14 AM
While any loss of life is tragic. She was in charge of her life. To say this is a right of passage is sad comment on society. It all goes back on her parents for not teaching her right. If her parents thought this was ok. Just take a good look at what the society has become. This is good lesson for old fashion values and morals. Where modesty and common sence went a long way.
tengger on March 1, 2008 at 4:03 AM
Our alcohol laws mean that children do not learn how to drink, and to limit their drinking, with their families. It may be that our last two generations have been too irresponsible to teach their children; it may be that they were near childhood themselves; but our laws ensure that teenagers living at home take alcohol with their equally inexperienced friends, and that those same friends surround them when they, one day, suddenly become ‘legal’.
njcommuter on March 1, 2008 at 6:44 AM
I agree. Now can I use deadly force to stop them from drinking?
tgillian on March 1, 2008 at 8:31 AM
I am not trying to pick a fight, but I do think you are missing part of the main point. The girl could have said NO to the first drink, or NO to the second and switched to pop or water..but she didn’t. This case, imo, represents parents that are angry and sad..they want everyone else to pay for their mistake and their daughters ignorance. Their mistake is not having taught Amanda about personal responsibility. They must not have taught her about the dangers of binge drinking. My guess is that Amanda’s parents did everything for her, including her thinking..how else would they know that she wanted to stop but the other girls wouldn’t let her?
Pam on March 1, 2008 at 8:42 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »