Originally Posted by DarkCloudInc
As I said, if one was required to select a single company as the one to be sued.
As for the companies you listed, those are the manufacturers, they are not the merchant as specified under state law.
Depending on how ESPN handles the booths that sell the liquor, ESPN could be the one that is being sued since it is their responsibility to refuse the sale of liquor to an intoxicated person. If is found that the company that sold the alcohol to the intoxicated person who in turn caused a fatality, the company is held liable for the actions of the intoxicated person as per state law. It is on this basis that ESPN can be held liable for the actions of the intoxicated person should it result in an injury or assault.
The bigger the risk, the bigger the gain. I'd place my bet on ESPN/Disney since their capital is direct and there is a lot to be said about a lawyer who fought against ESPN and won. With that under an lawyer's belt, the sky's the limit.
You're not understanding me. The argument is that you can't place the vendor as the sole blame in such an incident because the vendor can't gauge if someone's a lightweight in a quick encounter. There's people that can be drunk of one moderate drink, and there's no way for a vendor to gauge that on the spot. Therefore, the person buying would be the party more liable than the vendor.
But this is still an issue with the SPJA/IDG because they're not adapting to the new situation that creates safety issues.
By the way, I'm a legal secretary, so I spent some time talking with a couple of the attorneys I assist. *Listing the targets, they would rather go after the SPJA/IDG. *Dealing with Disney is like a white whale. *That's an awesome award, but you still have deep pockets and a situation that could have been avoided with some work on the SPJA's end versus a veritable mouse-eared juggernaut.*