Got drunk and killed someone … but what about MY damages?

In one (or more) of the original series of Star Wars movies, flummoxed hero Hans Solo could be heard exclaiming “It’s not my fault” when his bucket-of-bolts spaceship wouldn’t fly as it should. Needless to say, when one faces civil or criminal liability for their conduct, a common defense is that it’s “not my fault”. But a recently filed lawsuit in New Mexico takes the concept of refusing to accept personal responsibility one step further.

James Ruiz, already out on bond on his fifth DWI, was involved in a fatal drunk driving accident in 2010, in which two teenage sisters were killed. Mr. Ruiz was appropriately convicted of his crimes and sentenced to prison. The family of the girls filed civil suits, not surprisingly, against Ruiz (who is undoubtedly judgment-proof), and against the restaurant that served him alcohol that night, leading to his .22% blood-alcohol level at the time of the crash. Such a claim, known as “dram shop” liability, allows aggrieved victims of alcohol-related injuries to seek damages from the bar, restaurant or entity that over-served the drunk driver. Few would argue with the legitimacy of such a claim, although proof, of course, must be established on a case-by-case basis.

Mr. Ruiz, however, also felt personally aggrieved at having to do a 40 year stretch in the state’s correctional facilities, and therefore filed his own suit against the restaurant (and his drinking buddy that night as well), claiming that their actions caused him to suffer emotional distress, loss of liberty and loss of the ability to enjoy life. Apparently, since this was his sixth DWI, he will contend that he faced much less than 40 years in prison if convicted only on the charge for which he was out on bond at the time of this accident, had he not been forced by his buddy and the restaurant to down enough drinks to register a .22% blood alcohol level. Everyone knows that the profit margin on alcohol at any restaurant is pretty good, hence the reason the wait staff will frequently inquire if you “want another?” (and which, by increasing the bill, likely increase their tip). When the restaurant staff ignores the increasing inebriation of a hard-drinking patron who then causes injuries to someone after leaving the facility, dram shop laws make that restaurant liable to the injured party. But if the law were to make them liable for damages to the person actually doing the drinking too, then we’ve gone way past compensating the innocent victim, to the point of financially rewarding the actual guilty party. Doesn’t the “drinker” have to take personal responsibility for his own actions? Even when the staff politely and frequently inquires about another drink, or even pushes or cajoles one to order more, every customer has the right to say “no”. Or can they claim to be so weak-minded and lacking of backbone that they cower at the mere inquiry from a waitress about having another drink?

If a claim like this moron’s is valid, then where does it stop? A street thug who shoots a robbery victim sues the good Samaritan or police officer whose intervention causes the gun to go off for his own emotional distress at having to do time or watching his victim bleed? Perhaps Captain Schettino should consider suing the people waving to his boat from the nearby shore which apparently caused him to divert the Costa Concordia into the rocks that sank his ship, killing several dozen people. Couldn’t he claim that their conduct ultimately have caused him emotional distress? And he’s likely going to have that whole “loss of liberty” claim to raise because of his probable incarceration. That’s the new tort law idea…even when your own personal conduct and actions cause death or destruction, just claim “it’s not my fault” and find someone else to whom you can pass the responsibility, and sue them for your own damages over the incident where you injured or killed someone else.

At least I’m happy to say that in Mr. Ruiz’ case, he filed his lawsuit himself, so we can’t blame this poppycock on some sleazy ambulance-chasing attorney.

Anheuser-Busch Faces Class Action Suit Over Allegedly Watered Down Beer

There are no limits to the imagination of “class action” attorneys who want to find an issue to raise on behalf of those little people allegedly victimized by the conduct of the big corporate defendant. As most people know, the class plaintiffs in any such suit generally each get a few bucks, or a coupon for 50% off future purchases of the product in issue, while the attorneys reel in millions of dollars in fees for representing the class. I don’t begrudge the attorneys their contingent fee — if you take the risk of litigation you should reap the reward — but class action cases just seem so inequitable because instead of an individual plaintiff receiving the bulk of any settlement or verdict, millions of “plaintiffs” really get nothing. The more troubling part are the trivial things they come up with over which to file suit. The whole idea behind bringing a class action suit over some minor issue is that it is fiscally more reasonable for the defendant to settle the claim than to litigate it. I only wish more of them really went to trial, where the proof of some actual damage is required. The latest ingenious claim is that Anheuser-Busch has “watered down” their beer. To their credit, A-B is fighting back with an advertising campaign mocking the idea that they water down their product. But what I’d really like to see is the actual trial on these claims. How do the plaintiffs march into court and assert that they were damaged by getting LESS alcohol? Are they going to claim that in order to get good and wasted they had to buy 12 beers instead of 11? That when they got pulled over for drunk driving they only blew a .07 instead of the legally required .08 to get that DUI ticket because A-B was cheating them out of alcohol? And if it is really watered down, they likely got a few less calories than expected. Are they going to assert that their beer gut just doesn’t measure up to their buddies?http://www.dreamstime.com/stock-photography-pouring-beer-image5000172

We all understand the concept that we expect to get what we paid for. If you expected your beer to be 5% alcohol and for some reason it was only 4.9%, then the seller didn’t meet their end of the bargain. No doubt about it. And I guess this is what the plaintiff lawyers here are really trying to say. But seriously, is this the kind of thing that should be tying up our legal system? This is the kind of suit that really does give lawyers a bad name. I’m upset. Think I’ll go have a beer…or maybe two.