Catholic School Not Liable for Student's DUI Crash

[Beau_Ouiville]

Well, this one makes sense. The parents should not try to blame the school.

"(CN) - A Catholic high school is not liable for the injuries of a student who drank at an end-of-year party and crashed his car into a tree, killing his friend and becoming a quadriplegic, a Florida appeals court ruled.

 A 17-year-old student at Archbishop Carroll School left the party drunk, got in his car and hit a tree in a residential area while driving 80 to 100 mph, splitting the car in half. Two hours after the accident, his blood alcohol level was above .08. 

 The student and his parents argued that the school knew about the party and should have stopped it from happening. School administrators had intercepted "praty" invitations and made a skit called "Busting a Party" in response, warning students that school officials might show up. But mere knowledge about the party does not make the school liable, the Third District Court of Appeal in Miami ruled, reversing a ruling for the student and his parents. "

courthousenews.com/2010/02/12/24662.htm

 

[canadianguy1143]

Perhaps one can shed some light on this:

Was the student that was suing the school the kid who drove drunk or the passenger?
Was the party at the school? How can one obtain entry into the school assuming this party was at night?

I would agree that the school is not responsible. This reminds me of a similar story about 5 years ago in Ontario. A woman went to a company Christmas party, got drunk and left the party and crashed into another car and hydro pole. The drunk woman later sued the company saying they should have stopped her and wins the case!

 

[whatevergirl]

Perhaps one can shed some light on this:

Was the student that was suing the school the kid who drove drunk or the passenger?
Was the party at the school? How can one obtain entry into the school assuming this party was at night?

I would agree that the school is not responsible. This reminds me of a similar story about 5 years ago in Ontario. A woman went to a company Christmas party, got drunk and left the party and crashed into another car and hydro pole. The drunk woman later sued the company saying they should have stopped her and wins the case!

*That is different, because the company was sponsoring the party. It is written in many HR handbooks that drinking is off limits during lunches with clients, etc…because the reasoning is, that if the employee gets hurt, or injures or kills another person driving drunk, the company is liable…because the employee is drinking on company time. Company parties are often considered the same, as you are often required to attend these parties. While we’re all culpable for our own actions, the company is still responsible for what happens at company functions. It’s not like you going out for drinks after work with a few coworkers…different. If the COMPANY is sponsoring a company function, where alcohol is being served for free…then, they are liable.

The situation with the school, sounds like this was a private party that the school might have known about…if the party was at a student’s home…the parents who own the home should be liable for letting underage kids drink in the home…the school shouldn’t be responsible. *

 

[whatevergirl]

In reading the article again, it would seem sensible that the school not be charged, because the event was not ‘‘school sanctioned.’’ The example canadianguy gives about the work event…that party was sanctioned/sponsored by the employer, so that is why she sued and won. Sad, that we can sue people for our own irresponsibility… This is why I frown on offsite company parties where alcohol is served. I have been to many in my lifetime, but my dh and I only have a glass of wine or two…in a series of hours. I have seen many people at these functions get drunk, and to think that they can do so recklessly, and then blame the company…kind of strange, in my eyes. But, the company should also be paying attention to who is drinking too much, etc…because they are on the hook for damages if something bad happens. Interesting article, Beau!

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Perhaps one can shed some light on this:

Was the student that was suing the school the kid who drove drunk or the passenger?

The driver.

Was the party at the school? How can one obtain entry into the school assuming this party was at night?

The party was not at school

This reminds me of a similar story about 5 years ago in Ontario. A woman went to a company Christmas party, got drunk and left the party and crashed into another car and hydro pole. The drunk woman later sued the company saying they should have stopped her and wins the case!

Yes. It is standard personnel practice not to throw out someone drunk at work, but put them in a cab. IBM was successfully sued in the seventies for letting a drunk employee drive home.

 

[canadianguy1143]

The driver.

The party was not at school

Yes. It is standard personnel practice not to throw out someone drunk at work, but put them in a cab. IBM was successfully sued in the seventies for letting a drunk employee drive home.

If the party was not at school I can’t understand how the parents could morally say that the school was justified? In reading the details of this case, it appears that this has gone through the justice system and at one point the parents had won. How can any sane judge say that the school is responsible for what goes on off school premises and nothing to do with the school?

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

If the party was not at school I can’t understand how the parents could morally say that the school was justified? In reading the details of this case, it appears that this has gone through the justice system and at one point the parents had won. How can any sane judge say that the school is responsible for what goes on off school premises and nothing to do with the school?

Why don’t you click on the links and read the court’s opinion? It answers most of your questions.