Top Stories

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.

Comments

  1. Cherrypicking a couple words. The club bartenders should have known Maria was “clearly intoxicated” because they are serving her drinks. They have a legal responsibility to stop serving “clearly intoxicated” patrons. I was a bartender in college in Baltimore. The establishment has legal liability. Charlie is NOT responsible to watch Maria drink and determine how much she has had.

    Reply
  2. Yeah, but there is a law that makes the establishment that sells alcohol to a clearly drunk person, liable. Charlie didn’t serve alcohol to Maria, the club did.

    Everyone here who is giving Charlie hell about this is a fool if they don’t sue the establishment, if they were in Charlie’s position. Sure, you can say you’d have been smarter by not getting into the car with Maria, but how many people do you know who honestly haven’t ever made a mistake in judgement?

    Reply
  3. Okay, but how many people in that bar every night probably shouldn’t have driven home, even if you stopped serving them? Did you pay attention to EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM and make sure that they weren’t too drunk, or that they were going to get in a car? Try monitoring that for even a single night

    Reply
  4. Okay, let me give you a story. Girl walks into a restaurant. Girl gets in fight with boyfriend, starts screaming, and throws glass at him, which subsequently falls to floor and shatter. Girl storms off to the bathroom. Girl comes back, slips on glass, and breaks her leg. Girl sues restaurant and wins 10 million dollars for not cleaning up the mess, putting up a no slip sign, and leaving glass on the ground.

    Sound a little absurd? Now, you read this article, and nearly everyone expresses the absurdity of it. Not necessarily a lynch mob, but a natural reflex to an utterly ridiculous situation.

    Reply
  5. Why is it crazy to say the bar should be free from responsibility? I’m not questioning whether or not he found an area of the law that he could legitimately sue under, I’m questing the judicial system itself, which gives someone even half a chance of winning something like this.

    Reply
  6. Serving a person too much illegal? Not sure if that is the case. Typically, over serving is only brought into the legal realm when something results other than being drunk. Why should her family be compensated? For her daughters poor decision making? For her friends not stepping up? She broke the law, not the bar. CD knew that she was drunk and did nothing. Your assertion that the bar’s lawyers knew that they did something wrong shows just how naive you are. Settling or fighting a lawsuit is based not on guilt or innocence. It is based, usually, on the raw numbers. If winning hurts more than settling, you settle. If settling hurts more than fighting and losing, you fight. Sometime you just want to get it out of the way without dragging the business down while fighting the lawsuit. The girl and CD bear the brunt of the blame. You ask if the girl is an idiot. The answer is yes. Anyone who drives drunk is an idiot. Feeling sorry for them doesn’t change that.

    Reply
  7. There is nothing strange about the lawsuit. He sued under a theory of liability called “dram shop” which goes back centuries. Of course, if this case were to go to trial, the jury would have to apportion liability between all responsible parties: the bar, the driver, and anyone else they saw as being negligent. But to say that the bar should be free from any responsibility is just crazy.

    Reply
  8. First of all, we already have had waves of tort reform throughout the country, existing in different forms in different states. Some of this tort reform is incredibly restrictive, making certain lawsuits virtually impossible to pursue, putting caps on certain damages, and essentially insulating corporations from accountability. Second of all, the American legal system is the most equitable, fair, and sophisticated in the world. Our legal system, though imperfect, is and has been a model for the rest of the world. Our legal system isn’t mocked by anyone other than people like you, who know very little about it.

    Reply
  9. Freedom is based on responsibility for self, not control by others. By your ludicrous logic, car companies should pay for part of my speeding tickets because they make cars that can exceed the speed limit. People like you are always looking to blame someone else for personal failings. Why would the bar be responsible and CD not responsible? Does he have no responsibility for his “friend”? Is he not responsible because he did not make any money…OH wait, he just did. Turns out your logic sucks.

    Reply
  10. Don’t get in a car with a drunk driver. I’m not going to insult someone who is dead, but this should really be common sense. I’m not a lawyer so I couldn’t care less about the court case. But seriously, people, don’t drink and drive.

    Reply
  11. The “something to this” that you assume is just a company’s willingness to pay an amount of money they can afford, admit no guilt, avoid a public trial and keep making money doing the same thing. Whatever the amount it is drop in the bucket for Red Bull (with the bar adding a little money too).

    Reply
  12. It’s unbelievable. In this country now there is an excuse for everything. No one is responsible for themselves or their actions anymore. Everyone is a victim. Someone else is always to blame and lawyers agree.

    His attorney, Jon Pels, said in an interview: “As he was leaving, the driver asked if she and her friend could give him a ride to his hotel. In the hustle and bustle of the lobby as he was walking out — a split-second decision — he said yes. There was no meaningful time in which Mr. Davies had an opportunity to ‘observe’ the driver; he had no knowledge what she had been drinking or whether she had been drinking.”

    This BS makes me sick.

    Signed,

    A DC United fan

    Reply
  13. My point, Darwin, is that you can question (and even criticize) the prudence of the decisions made that night while still having sympathy for how tragic the situation was. To be honest, Darwin, I’m surprised you even asked because I thought it was pretty clear what my point is. My apologies, Darwin, for not making it more clear the first time.

    Reply
  14. While I agree with your sentiments, there are other considerations. Bar owners and others who distribute alcohol greatly profit off of a substance and behavior that is dangerous to the public. Individuals also make stupid decisions. Do you think individuals should carry the full weight of the consequences because of their decisions when an entire industry profits off of it? These bars and brewing/distilling companies appear to extract enormous profit margins off of selling their wares. Is it really much to ask that they stop serving drinks to someone who is completely hammered?

    Shouldn’t the profiteers share some of the cost? It’s a similar concept to tobacco companies having some liability for resulting cancer.

    Reply
  15. I’m a d’ck head and tasteless for using sarcasm to describe the absolute stupidity and insensitivity of Charlie’s actions (pre and post tragic accident). Therefore, far worse adjectives should be used to describe Charlie and his actions.

    Reply
  16. this is absolutely ludacris!!!!
    How many people are arrested for DWI and DUI in VA/DC/MD?? How many commercials do we see warning people about drunk driving, letting friends drive drunk and Alcohol???
    Just because CB made a bad decision he is entitle for compensation?? WHY BECAUSE HE IS CHARLIE DAVIS??
    Why should cops arrest drunk drives then?? Why not just stop them then ask “who sold you alcohol?” and go after these club owners?? Well the bartender clearly knew she was drunk….is there a limit, why do you think people drink?? TO GET INTOXICATED. This is the problem in this country no accountability?
    Can you sue the phone company or the person you are texting with if you get into an accident while texting and driving??
    Nobody on this blog is happy Davis got hurt but it was his fault, his responsibility for going out, getting into the car with a drunk driver and being out at that time.

    Reply
  17. Being disappointed is fine. When people insult and degrade him because he filled a successful legal challenge to the bar, based on information we are not privy to, is disappointing.

    Reply
  18. I am curious if you feel the same about the girl who died, is she an idiot? Should her family not be compensated for what the bar was doing, which was illegal? The lawyers of the bar clearly felt that the case was risky enough to merit a settlement, businesses don’t usually just give away money or accept blame if they don’t have to. But no lets just keep kicking them while they are down.

    Reply
  19. I don’t know man, you ever hear of Scandinavia? I mean, y’know, based on facts and statistical indicators (life expectancy, quality of life, income inequality, access and quality of healthcare, etc.) they’re actually ahead of us. But, I mean, you know lots of people have said what you just said (America is the greatest country the world has ever known). And if enough people make a blatantly untrue or at best subjective statement then it must be true.

    Also, our country was founded on Christian principles (slavery, not letting poor people or women have a say in government, Georgia being colonized by prisoners, indentured servitude and extermination of Native Americans, or the fact that Jamestown was first but no one wants to point to that because a bunch of dudes getting rich off tobacco is a less Christian narrative than pilgrims with buckle-shoes who later massacred Indians who helped them survive like their Jamestown compatriots)

    Ain’t history education great in this country?

    Reply
  20. Ya your an idiot, the bar settled because Davies had a legitimate legal argument. Whether or not you agree does not really matter.

    Reply
  21. Her parents were also suing the bar.

    A lot of knee jerk moralizers talking about something they know nothing about on here.

    My own uninformed opinion is that if there wasn’t something to this then the bar wouldn’t have settled.

    Reply
  22. Oye, pet peeve of mine are these flash/short headlines about what is/was alleged/proven in a lawsuit.

    I would bet that Charlie’s lawyers alleged that the bar/club should have known that she was clearly intoxicated.

    Does anyone know ALL of the facts of the accident/litigation before labeling anyone as an idiot.

    Reply
  23. I advise people on this thread to check out the PBS and Ken Burns documentary “Prohibition” which documents our reasons for getting into and out of the Prohibition era. It is clear that many of the arguments that arose then are being recapitulated here, and in present day society.

    Reply
  24. Gnarls, she didn’t know it was scaling hot. stop using the McD’s as a case in point. it doesn’t fit.

    also, McD’s kept their coffee scalding hot after many similar claims of burns. watch the documentary Hot Coffee.

    Reply
  25. Great commenter handle.

    That’s why we’re tasked with paying close attention. We were taught to look for certain things like forgetting to sign receipt or sloppy handwriting on tips all the way down to eye contact, etc.

    Reply
  26. I agree totally, and have lost respect for CD. He made his own choices, he shouldn’t be asking others to pay for the consequences of his actions, seeing as he admits he knew she was unfit.to drive. That’s disgusting. It’d be different if he was giving the money to a worthy charity, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.

    Reply
  27. Why is it that whenever I read stories about this tragic accident I rarely hear mention of the young lady who died? Everyone wants to discuss Charlie Davies or the drunk driver who is in jail and their poor choices. Rarely do I hear anything about Ashley Roberta who was killed.

    If anyone deserves to be “compensated” for their loss, it’s the family who lost their daughter not a socer player who may have lost his career.

    Reply
  28. I just crashed into another car while reading this story. I’m going to hire Charlie’s lawyer to sue SBI. It’s his fault for posting it, not mine for reading it.

    Reply
  29. That “LSU guy” confirms that:
    1. Davies is an idiot.
    2. Saying “who hasn’t done this must be a puritan” is just asinine. Who hasn’t gotten in a car with a drunk driver? Me, that’s who, and lots of other sensible people with much less on the line than Charlie Davies. Let’s not excuse actions that led to the death of an innocent and also ruined Davies’ career.
    3. Lead is a metal. Led is the past tense of lead.

    Reply
  30. One is legally prohibited from operating a motor vehicle (.08% BAC) long before they are super drunk, wasted, or hammered.

    .08% is less than 3 pints in an hour for most people.

    Reply
  31. Why should a bar tender be responsible for how a patron gets home?
    This is DC! There are buses, the Metro & taxis, all of which are perfect safe for a drunk person trying to get home on.

    Why not sue the car maker? After all they made a car that a drunk person could drive. The bar in no more responsible than the car maker.

    Reply
  32. Agreed 110%, especially in Southern California. It’s nearly impossible to take public transit from point A to point B unless you live in central LA. I don’t know the stats, but I’m willing to bet drunk driving accidents are significantly higher in the US than Europe do to our inadequate public transit systems.

    Reply
  33. My name is Pedro Leon and I live in Los Angeles, California. Now it’s not anonymous.

    I assume that statement was partially aimed at my earlier comment. I do not believe CD or anyone “deserves” to go through a horrific car crash. He’s lucky to be alive and I’m stoked he’s made such a solid comeback.

    My point was was two-fold: a) It was unwise (read: stupid) for CD to get in a car with a drunk driver, and b) suing a bar for serving drinks is like suing the ocean for getting you wet. It’s what they do. In a perfect world the bartender would paid particularly close to this one extra-drunk patron, but it seems unreasonable to hold a bartender responsible for a patron’s actions.

    Reply

Leave a Comment