<p>“So…WHO is Liable??”</p>
<p>Anhaiser Bush?</p>
<p>sounds like it is time to keep the garage doors down and locked at all times! :eek:</p>
<p>The NJ case (where the kids partied and trashed the house of someone who wasn’t home…see post 8) had its court date yesterday. All the kids got probation for minors (be nice for a year) and had to pool money to pay the $750 the homeowners insurance didn’t cover. </p>
<p>Lesson learned by these kids? Hire a lawyer, shut up and you will be fine. Meanwhile the owners of the house have been under attack with continuing harrassment at their home.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20070623_Probation_for_6_whose_party_trashed_house.html[/url]”>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home_top_stories/20070623_Probation_for_6_whose_party_trashed_house.html</a></p>
<p>Newspaper story about the 6 who trashed the house. It is really disturbing to me that kids would think this was a fun thing to do. And the town where it happened has a reputation as a wonderful place to live with excellent schools! The whole thing horrifies me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love the way the father manfully steps up and…blames society for his own parenting shortcomings and his son’s vandalism. “It’s society that made him do it, your honor…”</p>
<p>Having read the entire article that is the exact quote that stopped me in my tracks. </p>
<p>Those kids should be doing weekend community service for a year.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Thanks for the update on this awful situation. Poor dear who had to endure a sharp tone!</p>
<p>Community service? They all ought to do some time IMO. I wonder if the homeowner could sue in civil court for damages. I’d feel let down too.</p>
<p>Doubleplay, in Florida, there are tough laws about kids not just being serve alcohol, but gaining access to alcohol on someone’s property, or even just partaking of alcohol on someone’s property. You would be held responsible if kids stole beer from the fridge in your garage, and something happened as a result. You could be held at fault for leaving your garage door unlocked and open. Had your kids had a party at your home while you were gone, or had your kids given a key to someone who had a party while you were gone, you could be held responsible if there were a problem as a result. A parent does not have to be home or have any knowedge of the drinking to be held accountable. There are both criminal and civil liabilities.</p>
<p>We have a fridge in the garage for soda, extra milk, cheese, etc. We no longer keep beer in it. I panicked one day when my D2 told me of fellow middle schoolers she knew who were drinking beer. One lived down the street. I knew she knew we had beer in our fridge with the soda. My H doesn’t drink at all, and I have a mixed drink when eating out about once a month. But we used to keep beer in the garage fridge for family or friends. I asked D2 where these kids would get beer to drink. Turns out they would sneak it out of their homes, or raid similar “garage” fridges. I had about 10 beers that I literally poured out. Now family or friends have to bring their own, and take it with them when they leave.</p>
<p>Wow, SunnyFlorida,
I am shocked.
The policeman did not mention anything to us about our liability when he returned later that night. He only offered to press charges if we wanted to. He also said that this stealing out of garages stuff is very common in the teen set, and not just for beer (they take bikes, skateboards, surfboards, tools, whatever).</p>
<p>We have such an active household, our garage door would be going up and down all day long if we tried to keep it closed while we were all at home. Usually it stays up while we’re here, and is down when no one is home, at night, or when <em>I</em> am at home alone. That night (and it wasn’t really nighttime yet, it was about 6:00), both my son and I were at home and we hadn’t “closed shop” for the night yet, meaning he was in and out, playing basketball, the dog was in and out, I had gone out to walk the dog, etc. It was quite a shock for him to confront an intruder!</p>
<p>Would the same liability go for someone coming in to a garage and, say, hurting themselves with lawn equipment- blades, cutters, etc. Or stealing tools such as saws and mowers, and then cutting off a limb?
Just curious.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>To be honest, law enforcement would not be that concerned about your having alcohol in your garage fridge, that is, until someone got drunk and hurt someone. And it is not that there are that many parents being charged under social host laws unless they are actually serving alcohol to minors. But it is the civil liability that can be a problem. Sure as someone innocent is hurt by an intoxicated teen that had access to alcohol on your property, there could be a personal injury attorney ready to sue you. I am not aware of any cases of parents being sued when an underage drinker was stealing beer from a garage fridge. But there are many cases of parents who were sued when alcohol was obtained/consumed on the property by teens, without the knowledge or consent of the parents/adults and injury or death resulted. In some cases the alcohol was “owned” by the parents. Kids had access to beer or a liquor cabinet and drank without parental knowledge. In some cases the alcohol was brought to the home by the kids, and consumed on the premises without the parents knowledge. </p>
<p>Florida’s “Open House Party” law includes language that says that property owners must take reasonable steps to prevent underage drinking on their premises.</p>
<p>While not alcohol related, recently in a nearby community, a policeman left his service revolver in his locked squad car, parked in his driveway. (We have some local agencies that allow officers to drive the squad car to and from work.) Someone BROKE into his car and stole the gun. The gun was used to kill someone within the first 12-24 hours. The family of the victim sued, but not the shooter. They sued the policeman. This case will be winding through the courts. </p>
<p>Given the statutes putting the owner of the property where alcohol is available or consumed by minors at risk, you have a risk keeping beer in the garage refridge, albeit a low risk. If you are perceived as a deep pocket, or you have really good homeowners or umbrella insurance covering liability, you could ultimately be sued. </p>
<p>My apologies to any personal injury attorneys, but cases like this are not unusual in Florida.</p>
<p><a href=“Home - Stateline”>Home - Stateline;
This article is a few years old.<br>
Your current problem is that you now KNOW that teens have been in your garage “looking for beer.” Its on the record. If these kids come back, and are successful, if they get drunk and kill someone and say they got the beer/wine etc from your garage fridge, you have got a problem. It may not be a criminal problem. But in south Florida, there would be more than one firm interested in representing the victim’s family. While the drinking did not occur in your home, and the drinkers actually stole the alcohol from your garage, you had prior knowledge that this was happening and you didn’t move the alcohol inside. </p>
<p>Trust me, you would be smart to move the alcohol.</p>
<p>
I’m not a personal injury attorney, but I am a lawyer, and cases “like this” are not just “unusual” - they range from “extremely rare”, to “wildly exaggerated” to “not real.” Kind of like the daughter in the original story, who only had a “few sips” of beer - people tend to slant their stories to make them sound more sympathetic - including the people who do get sued. The problem is that people come to believe that there is rampant litigation all over the country in which people are suing over trivial or silly slights and getting showered with huge cash settlements.</p>
<p>In fact, that’s not just “unusual” - it’s a fantasy. But it’s a fairly dangerous fantasy because people have two reactions to it. First, they develop contempt for the legal system; second, they become bitter when they are told that their own issues aren’t worth millions. Is it a good idea to remove alcohol from an accessible refrigerator? Sure. Bad things might happen if you don’t. Isn’t that a good enough reason? Does fear of litigation have to enter into it?</p>
<p>The alternative would be to move the beer/wine to our kitchen refrigerator which is CONSTANTLY being opened by teens, both my own and others. I guess I’ll either have to remove all beer and wine from my house or get a padlock for my garage refrigerator. Or live like a normal person and hope for the best. It’s not that we have tons of alcohol our there. At any given time, it may be a 6 pack and a bottle of leftover white wine that we’re using for cooking. Maybe an extra bottle we’re chilling for some reason.</p>
<p>
For the deputy who had the gun out of sight in a locked car, this is not wildly exaggerated, nor a fantasy, it is very real. The death that resulted was accidental, but someone died, and the deputy and his department are sued.
<a href=“http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/news_columnists/article/0,2820,TCP_24522_5540501,00.html[/url]”>http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/news_columnists/article/0,2820,TCP_24522_5540501,00.html</a></p>
<p><a href=“http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0,2545,TCP_16736_5536550,00.html[/url]”>http://www.tcpalm.com/tcp/local_news/article/0,2545,TCP_16736_5536550,00.html</a>
</p>
<p>Sunnyflorida, please follow the context:
As to the police officer who left a loaded pistol in an allegedly unlocked car in an allegedly visible location parked in his driveway; sure, he’s not the primary person to blame. But is he entirely faultless? Would any of us say it’s okay to leave an unconcealed, loaded gun in an unlocked car in a suburban driveway? Is it forseeable that something bad might happen as a result of doing that? I’d think so. That’s why I say the threat of litigation isn’t the first and last thing which should govern our actions; common sense is. And common sense would tell me not to leave a loaded gun in an unlocked car in a suburban driveway.</p>
<p>I agree with kluge. It’s hard to comment on specific cases without all the information, which the general public is rarely privy to. But in general. There are the occasional ridiculous cases (the lost pair of pants), but for example one that comes a lot is McDonald’s being sued over spilled hot coffee. It sounds bad at first, but it isn’t as bad once all the facts come out: that McDonald’s was repeatedly warned they couldn’t serve beverages at that temperatures before the incident, making their continued habit of doing so negligence. And there’s probably even more to the case that made it successful.</p>
<p>But liability is also not everything. I once had a conversation with people about speed limits in neighborhood that often have young children around, and the speed limits don’t reflect that. It’s safe to drive below the limit through these areas, but some people said they flat out won’t, because it’s legal for them to drive faster. They said they won’t slow down even if they know it could minimize their chance of hitting a child, because the child “isn’t their responsibility”. They also said they wouldn’t feel bad if they hit a child driving at the speed limit. I was a little shocked. Would they feel bad if there was a liability to this??? To me, common sense would dictate that you would take into account all conditions and drive at the safest speed possible, liability notwithstanding, because you would OF COURSE feel bad if you struck and severely injured or killed a child. I’m a little disturbed that for some people this is apparently not the case.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/monica_yant_kinney/20070627_Monica_Yant_Kinney___Dont_Snitch_comes_to_suburbs.html[/url]”>http://www.philly.com/inquirer/columnists/monica_yant_kinney/20070627_Monica_Yant_Kinney___Dont_Snitch_comes_to_suburbs.html</a></p>
<p>This is a thought-provoking column on the home wrecking incident in Haddonfield, NJ, discussed earlier on this thread. Every time I read more about this incident, I am shocked all over again.</p>
<p>The stuff these kids did is so perverted and sick. It’s not the “normal” teenage shenanigans, if there is such a thing.<br>
Wouldn’t you consider someone who likes to urinate and defecate in public places some kind of psychosis or something??? How about leaving sanitary napkins around? This is not typical party behavior.</p>
<p>We’ve had our share of kids partying while parents are gone in our community. They go to the house, drink, smoke weed, use the bedrooms for sex. OK, not good, but “normal” bad behavior, right??</p>
<p>What these kids did is sick. I’d really be concerned if my son acted out that way. I’d have him on a couch somewhere pronto!</p>
<p>Exactly, doubleplay. And then kluge wonders why people have contempt for our legal system?</p>
<p>Actually, Stickershock, a lot of the contempt for the legal system comes from unprincipled or less-than-competent hacks who write inflammatory and misleading columns and articles in the press - like the author of this one.</p>
<p>I don’t know all the details, but a couple of things jumped out at me which you wouldn’t know about: for example, the statement that the defendants only had to pay the $750 insurance deductible, not the entire cost to repair the damage they caused. That’s almost undoubtedly wrong, but in a way you wouldn’t have reason to know about, any more than any other reader of this article who isn’t an attorney.</p>
<p>There’s a subtle legal issue involving different legal mechanisms for recovering compensation for damages incurred as a result of criminal behavior. Historically, financial damages for criminal wrongs were recovered through a civil lawsuit separate from the criminal proceedings - like the one OJ Simpson’s in-laws filed against him, and won. In more recent years, a clumsy process in the criminal courts called “restitution” has authorized a criminal judge to order convicted defendants to pay the victim for certain specific losses. But that process generally is more restrictive than the civil court mechanism, and recovery of full compensation is still left to the parallel court process. </p>
<p>It is probable that in the jurisdiction in which these cases were heard, the criminal judge lacks jurisdiction to order defendants to pay anything other than the homeowner’s actual out of pocket loss - i. e., her deductible. That doesn’t mean that the insurance company can’t - or won’t - collect whatever else it paid out from those same people through other legal means. (Hence the denied request that the guilty pleas not be admissible in future civil actions. Those actions will be brought by the insurance company if the defendants don’t pay up voluntarily.) </p>
<p>So, your buttons were pushed and your strings pulled by an artfully misleading article written by a journalist looking to inspire emotion, rather than inform. I don’t know if “Monica Yant Kinney” is ignorant of the law behind the events she reported, or was deliberately misleading people. (My guess is the former.) You feel contempt - not for the author, but for the legal system, for doing something it didn’t actually do. That’s why people have contempt for the legal system. Because people who want to exaggerate for dramatic effect can distort facts just enough to cause a knee-jerk reaction among a reliable segment of society.</p>