POWERED BY

U.S. Men's National Team

Report: Davies reaches settlement with businesses that served drunk driver

MLSMJ091011006

 

Former U.S. national team star Charlie Davies hasn't been able to find the form he once had since a horrible auto accident in which he was badly injured in 2009, but he has taken a step closer to finding closure from the incident that permanently impacted his soccer career, and nearly killed him.

According to a report from the Washington Post, Davies has reached an undisclosed settlement in the lawsuit he filed last year, which contained claims against Shadow Room, the D.C. club that served alcohol to the driver of the car that crashed and injured Davies, and Red Bull North America, which hosted a party at the club after which Davies was hurt.

Davies claimed that Maria Espinoza, the driver of the car, was "clearly intoxicated" but continued to be served alcohol the night of the accident. Espinoza is serving a prison sentence for her role in the death of Ashley Roberta, the other passenger in the car, as well as for causing Davies' life-threatening injuries.

Although he made a remarkable comeback to soccer, including an emotional return to D.C. to play for D.C. United on loan, Davies' career has been irreparably harmed. A regular starter for the U.S. national team in the midst of a blossoming career in the French First Division, Davies he's now 26 and playing in Denmark with Randers. He is still working to fully recover from the accident, and may never be the same again.

122 comments
  • KenC

    Uhm, who said Charlie didn’t own up to his own mistakes? Regardless, the club has legal liability, not Charlie. Charlie has already paid for his mistake, almost with his life. What is wrong with you people?

    Like

  • KenC

    But you ASSume that Charlie knew Maria was drunk.

    The “clearly intoxicated” applies to the bartenders in the club who are legally responsible for the drinks they serve to patrons. They are required to observe before they pour.

    Like

  • jmadsen

    There is a law – making it a criminal matter for the DA.

    Making a bad judgement shouldn’t lead to a personal reward just because someone else made that bad judgement possible.

    If they HADN’T served her drinks, she STILL would have driven drunk, and he STILL would have taken a ride from her.

    Like

  • KenC

    Isn’t Finland in Scandinavia? Aren’t they some of the world’s heaviest drinkers with high rates of depression and suicide?

    Like

  • KenC

    The sad thing is that the story implies one thing, from which everyone is drawing the WRONG conclusion.

    Charlie did not know Maria was “clearly intoxicated”. He did not watch her drink.

    The term “clearly intoxicated” is being used, because there is a law that makes a bar or club and its bartenders legally responsible for overserving patrons. If it’s in a lawsuit, it’s being applied to the club, whose bartenders are required to observe patrons as they serve them, as they are required to refuse serving patrons who are “clearly intoxicated”.

    As for how a club is to know a person might drive, they have to assume that is a possibility. Bars and clubs and bartenders KNOW these liability laws. They have been around for decades. Patrons are not responsible for watching everyone else drink, the club and bartenders are.

    Like

  • KenC

    Charlie PAID a price for his mistake, are you people daft? Now, the club is paying a price for THEIR mistake, of serving alcohol to a “clearly intoxicated” person. There’s been a law on the books for several decades now that makes bars/clubs and bartenders responsible for overserving.

    Like

  • Darwin

    Right, but you neither questioned nor criticized anything, so naturally, Kevin Arnold, we’re left with

    1. it’s a tragedy
    2. He made a dumb mistake

    I don’t think anyone would argue that. Nevertheless, I was curious what your point was, since we can’t read your mind. So I’ll ask you point blank. Are you behind Charlie Davies?

    Like

  • Darwin

    Yes, you described a ridiculous situation, and I admire your creativity. Now read the thread for the great arguments about the liability of the bar and bartender.

    Realize that they reached a settlement, because there is an issue of liability.

    Like

  • Ryan

    I am 22 and I have made plenty of poor decisions that I regret making and could have ended tragically. But they were all my decisions and it would have been my responsibility. The bottom line is Maria and Charlie made poor choices that had tragic consequences, yes the bar should have stop serving her but they didn’t tell her to drive and they didn’t tell Charlie to get in the car.

    Like

  • DCP

    I think we should file a class action suit against Charlie Davies because his reckless decision making has had a deep and lasting emotional impact on our ability to enjoy the USMNT. I think Gooch should also file suit against Davies because he may not have injured his knee in that game if the team didn’t have to deal with the stress of one of their compatriots being in a life threatening accident.

    And before anyone calls me insensitive, please keep in mind that I am not poking fun at anyone’s injuries, death, regrets, or emotional trauma, but CD’s decision to seek a remedy for a situation that he created.

    Like

  • Seriously?

    Really, when you get in a car with someone, you have no responsibility to make sure that person is fit to drive? Seriously? And no I’m not saying the driver has no responsibility, but it’s your life, it’s up to you to take care of things you can control, and choosing whether our not to get in a car being driven by someone who is obviously drunk is well within your control.

    Like

  • Seriously?

    Yeah, if this was the DA going after them, nobody would have complained. But this was a lawsuit filed by Davies, not something the DA pursued, making it seem like he was trying to get others to share the blame for him choosing to get in a car with a drunk driver, after choosing to go out drinking after curfew, etc.

    Like

  • BigBirdLenny

    Scott: My fault for not explaining myself well enough. I don’t know anything about Davies’s case, and I don’t think bars should have liability in all cases. I also don’t think all liability should be on the bar, even if what Davies is claiming is true. My logic is this:

    1) Drinking is dangerous to the public, specifically when driving will happen,

    2) As a society, we’ve decided to make drinking legal, with restrictions, despite safety and addiction issues,

    3) People WILL be harmed by alcohol consumption no matter what we do (accident victims, children of alcoholics, etc.)

    4) A large industry makes a lot of money selling alcohol, but would socialize all of the negative costs to the public and to individuals unlucky enough to get injured (ex: Aunt Mary gets hit by an uninsured drunk and has to live with it; Charlie gets beat by his alcoholic father and has to live with it — society will end up providing medical care to these people)

    5) If Bars have some liability when they knowingly serve alcohol to people who are totally smashed and those people cause injuries to others, they will change their behavior. They will also buy insurance to spread risk of that liabiity across all bar owners,

    6) The cost of that insurance will get passed down to people who go drinking in the form of more expensive drinks, cover charges, etc.,

    7) Now people engaging in the risky behavior are effectively paying for part of the liability.

    It’s simple. If you want to operate a bar and profit off of a substance that is harmful to OUR public, and you want to do so legally, you will share the costs with the public. Our other option is prohibition. Under prohibition the bar owners can operate under threat of physical harm from gangsters and harassment by the state. I think they will choose legalization. We already do this to some extent by taxing alcohol.

    As for Davies, I imagine he has some responsibility in this. If what he claims is true about the bar, it’s possible they have some responsibility. So why does Davies pay the full cost? I’m not particularly sympathetic toward Davies, but I think your juvenile vitriol toward me is a bit misplaced. Are you 14 years old?

    Like

  • ThaDeuce

    Yeah well, there are too many laws, and therefore too many law suits. always an excuse and a way to get rich quick by unproductive means. get over it.

    Like

  • ThaDeuce

    He is just saying Charlie has no “legal” responsiility in the matter. This is the problem with people who want to solve problems through legislation rather than be responsible for their actions.

    Like

  • ThaDeuce

    We ALL had mucho respect for the tragic situation. I have no respect for this lawsuit, which is what the article is about.

    Like

  • ThaDeuce

    why does charlie deserve money from the bar? they both made mistakes…. charlie is profiting off of a loss.

    Like

  • ThaDeuce

    Just because it is legal to profit off of this does not make it right, moral, or ethicsl.

    Like

Add your comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

More from SBI Soccer

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,104 other followers