This is at Every Game ,with every Team !

The drunk driver should spend years and years in prison. But Aramark has NO RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL in my opinion.

I can't effing stand this argument. Since when can a dollar value be put on someone's life? Why do we insist on assigning a dollar value to it? First off, punitive damages like that are ineffective. The only people that care if Aramark loses 109 million are the shareholders, and the CFO and CEO of Aramark. And they won't make any sweeping changes as a result of the punitive damage ruling, they already have mechanisms in place not to sell to visibly drunk people. It's stupid to ask Aramark to pay $109 million. The primary responsibility rests with the guy who got behind the wheel.

The only reason Aramark was named in the case was because this family was out for jackpot justice, and when they realized that they could only milk a couple thousand out of the drunk driver, they went after whoever had money. And that was Aramark.

What, paying $109 million is supposed to make anybody any less hurt or any less dead? It's retarded. It accomplishes nothing, other than get the family rich off their daughter's misfortune.

Exactly, I agree with you 100%. The company has no involvement, and the only thing to get out of the company is money. Like I said before, people have to make their own choices, and face the results of that choice, and not blame it on other people.

The person is responsible to know when to stop and whether or not to drive. Whats next, sue the police deptarment for not catching the guy before he killed someone? Could say they weren't trained enough to spot him, weren't enough cops on the road, and didn't care enough.

It's a very tragic story. But where does it end really? I mean I've heard of similar cases where the car company is sued, the construction company that built the road is sued, the city is sued, and so on.

When you go to a game you usually have a ticket stub right? So the venders could put in a system that rations a certain amount of beers to each ticket, each time you buy a beer your ticket will be scanned and it will mark how many beers you have bought on that ticket. I know that there are ways around that but its an idea to help curb excess drinking, realistically it would be impossible to stop people from drinking and driving. It is so sad that the little girl now has to live a life in a wheel chair, very very sad.

When you go to a game you usually have a ticket stub right? So the venders could put in a system that rations a certain amount of beers to each ticket, each time you buy a beer your ticket will be scanned and it will mark how many beers you have bought on that ticket. I know that there are ways around that but its an idea to help curb excess drinking, realistically it would be impossible to stop people from drinking and driving. It is so sad that the little girl now has to live a life in a wheel chair, very very sad.

wouldn't work.

first: WAY too expensive, and it also slows down sales immensely.
second: he could borrow a stub from his wife/friend/kid/etc or say he lost it.
third: if he really wanted to, he could either sneak beer in or get drunk elsewhere. so it really wouldn't matter who sold him how much beer.

in this case, he was drinking at the tailgate, drinking at the game, and drinking at the strip joints afterwards.

1st- It wouldnt slow sales immensly, maybe slower but it doesnt take that long to scan a ticket so i dont buy immensley. Dont make the equipment sound like it would cost millions to install and use cause it wouldnt. The Military uses a scanning system overseas all the time and it is easy to use and not really a hassle at all

2nd- Yes he could borrow a ticket from someone else, but like i said it is just an idea.

Relax its just an idea to curb incidents of drunk drivers ruining other peoples lives. I realize that an individual can get drunk somewhere else but like i said it is just an idea

Sorry, I disagree with the whole concept of "It's ALL the driver's fault". I am not saying it automatically is Aramark's fault BUT they MAY bear some fault in this matter and, if so, should be liable too.

If I, knowing you are drunk and, by definition, know you that your decision making capability is impaired, then I am contributing to your impairment and, in fact, profiting from it when I sell you more alchohol. In addition, regardless of whether or not I know that you will drive later, the inherent dangers in furthering public drunkeness should, at the very least, put me on notice that your impaired condition could be the direct cause of significant harm to others.

The public policy behind dram shop laws is to punish sellers of alchohol in order to protect the general welfare. They were not created in a vacume but were a reaction to the dangers of public drunkeness - and are a tool used by the public to place some responsibility on sellers of alchohol so that they take responsibilty for the inherent dangers of their product.

With that said, the company should only be held liable, in my opinion, if it's hiring procedures and training of the vendor were insufficient or if it encouraged vendors to increase profits without due care towards public safety ("don't worry about selling to drunks, the stadium police will get them if they become a problem"). If the company appropriately trained its people not to sell to drunks, then it should be off the hook. If it gave no instruction, well then it probably (b/c of the liability placed by dram shop laws) is on the hook.

As for the total amount awarded - an otherwise healthy 2yr old now has to spend her life as a quadripalegic. Maintenance Health care alone will be astronomical.

Those who contributed to, and profited from, the fan's drunken behavior should join in the payment of the damages caused by that behavior. Particularly when the public has recognized a specific danger and enacted laws that distribute liability.

If all cars had breathalyzers (sp?) then nobody could drive drunk. The way I see it, if people REALLY cared about drunk driving then every car would have one.

I think it would suck to have a breathalyzer on every car, but it would be justified and would certainly reduce the amount of drunk driving accidents.

It's a very tragic story. But where does it end really? I mean I've heard of similar cases where the car company is sued, the construction company that built the road is sued, the city is sued, and so on.

While true that we are a very litigious society, the mere fact that lawsuits are filed doesn't mean they are successful.

As to where it stops - USUALLLY, it stops where it should. In some cases, it doesn't and we get the "hot coffee" cases. But, in my experience, those are the exception and not the rule (even in the hot coffee case there was some rationality - http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/tort/myths/articles.cfm?ID=785).