[JoeRedskin]

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.