Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dmek25
you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl?
|
No, if it were my little girl, $109 million would not be enough. But I would be biased and that's why injured parties do not sit on juries of their own lawsuits. Sounds like the court is saying that some evidence, that Aramark
should have been able to present, was supressed. Had it been presented, maybe the jury would not have awarded $109 million. So the trial is a "do over."
Aramark is entitled to fairness, too. I can't tell from this snippet how much beer Aramark sold the guy; how drunk he may have looked; or when they last sold the beer to him; or the time gap between his last beer at the game and his next hit at the girly club; or how much he had at the girly club; or whether they should have cut him off; or a lot of other details why Aramark was liable for $109 million when the Giants, Meadowlands, NFL and especially the strip clubs settled for $1 million. Something funny there.
Giantone's original point was that rowdy behavior has become a bigger part of football games than it used to be. That's true. And the people most responsible are the ones who get tanked. Adults are supposed to be responsible for their own actions.