Drunk driving fan injures baby - Parents sue NFL for encouraging drinking.

I’m sorry the baby was injured, but this lawsuit is asinine!

Family Sues NFL After Daughter Injured By Drunken Fan

The following must be banned immediately:

barley, corn, wheat, and potatoes

…because it encourages the creation of alcohol. “These are the very things that promote the creation of alcohol and kill children.” Well, that’s about how it sounds anyway. Morons.

Well, since Daniel Lanzaro probably has no money, they have to sue those who do.

I hope a judge throws this out. Since when does tailgating=getting smashed?

A lot of tailgaiting consists of, well, a tailgate and a 'que. It doesn’t always consists of alcohol.

Here in Texas, as far as I know, if you leave an establishment drunk and hurt someone, that establishment is legally responsible for your actions (to a point). I may be wrong, but that is my understanding of the law. Hopefully someone more knowledgable than I will come along.

Could this be the case in NJ?

If individual Team stadiums make a decision to open the parking lot a few hours early to allow tailgaters to mingle and have tailgate parties, it requires a fairly involved causal linkage to wind this back to being Paul Tagliabue and the NFL’s direct responsibility.

Baby is injured >
by drunk driving football fan >
that got drunk at a tailgate party >
held in a parking lot owned by a stadium >
controlled by a team >
in a league governed by the NFL >
that should realize that opening early to allow tailgate parties>
enourages excessive alcohol consumption.

Giving drinks to a drunk at a bar is one thing, but (IMO) there are too many bridges to cross in this chain of causation.

Well, I heard that they served him 17 beers AT THE GAME. And he achieved this amount by bribing the vendor $10 to give him 6 beers at a time, instead of the NFL-mandated limit of 2.

From where I sit, that makes the concession company partially at fault. Don’t know how you tie it to the NFL, since they went against NFL policy.

-lv

Does anyone think that maybe, just maybe, the blame lies with the stupid moron who decided to drink 17 beers at an NFL game?

Sure, but as ivylass has already noted, the NFL has money and Daniel Lanzaro probably doesn’t.

Heck, why not just sue the government for repealing the Prohibition Act?

This applies only if the establishment sells alcohol, and the person got drunk on the drinks they sold him. Thus bars are supposed to refuse to sell a drink to someone who is drunk. At least, that’s the law in Minnesota, and I think it’s similar to the Texas law.

Actually, I don’t think it is that crazy. There very well may be Dram Shop liability in this situation, but there are some dots to connect to get to the NFL itself. I can see that the plaintiff might get the consesison vendor, the stadium and maybe the NFL.

So if someone is drunk before the game (at the tailgate party) and the concession people sell him beers anyway, then they are legally liable for his actions, right?

Especially if it is as LordVor states, where he bribed them to go against the stated rules.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t at all condone what he did. He is a stupid moron. Whether it is ethically wrong or legally wrong to sue the NFL (and all the others) are two totally different things.

Astro, you say that there are too many bridges to cross, and in regards to the suing of the NFL, you are probably right. However, if law in NJ states that who ever served him last is the one responisble for his leaving inebriated, then there is only one bridge: straight to the concession people.