D.C. United striker Charlie Davies has reportedly filed a $20 million lawsuit against the nightclub owner and party host that continued to serve alcohol to the woman that was behind the wheel on the night of the accident that tragically killed one passenger and severely injured Davies.
According to the Washington Post, Davies is filing his suit against Das Enterprises, the owner of the Shadow Room in Washington, D.C., and Red Bull North America, which hosted the party at the club a little more than two years ago.
The suit — which involves the company that owns the New York Red Bulls — claims that in addition to continuing to serve alcohol to Maria Alejandra Espinoza, the accident also caused permanent damage to Davies' body and altered his career path to the point that it prevented him from participating in the World Cup for the United States.
Here are a few more stories to get your day rolling:
CAPELLO HINTS TO ROONEY INCLUSION
There has been some speculation as to whether Wayne Rooney would be included on Fabio Capello's Euro 2012 squad after being banned for the first three games of the tournament. Speaking to reporters, Capello gave an indication of what he wants his squad to look like, and he seemed to hint that Rooney would be a part of it.
"The young players are really good and ready to play with the seniors, and the experience of the seniors is really important," Capello said. "During the games we need some leaders, people that know something. Jack Wilshere is incredible because he is so young. We also need the experience of John Terry, Rio Ferdianand and Scott Parker. You need this kind of player, plus Rooney, I hope."
GRONDONA KEEPS ARGENTINA POST
Even though he's come under scrutiny for alleged fraud and money laundering, Julio Grondona will remain president of the Argentine Football Association after winning re-election for his ninth term.
Grondona, 80, is a member of the FIFA executive committee, a close confidant to FIFA president Sepp Blatter and won unanimously to extend his reign to 2015.
RANGERS TOPS LIVERPOOL IN FRIENDLY
In a rare October club friendly between UK powers, Rangers defeated Liverpool, 1-0, Tuesday at the Ibrox Stadium.
Lee McCulloch scored the only goal in the 20th minute to lift the Scottish champions, as both teams trotted out reserve-heavy lineups.
U.S. national team winger Alejandro Bedoya started and played 64 minutes for Rangers, while Maurice Edu and Carlos Bocanegra were not part of the squad.
—————————
What do you think of Davies' lawsuit? Think it's a no-brainer for Rooney to be included on the Euro roster? What do you think of Grondona remaining in power? Think Bedoya made the right choice by transferring to Rangers?
Share your thoughts below.
Right. What bothers you, and what seems to bother most posters here, is that there is such thing as a dram shop claim. But again, the dram shop laws are primarily used to hold alcohol-serving premises responsible.
The real question is: what does the lawsuit say about Charlie Davies’ mindset right now? And the only answer I can come up with is that it says he is throwing in the towel. If he is focused on reliving or reinventing history, then he is certainly not focused on his future. That’s why this lawsuit is really bad news.
But was the bartender serving the drinks to the young woman? Or was a waiter or waitress involved?
Was the club loud and dark like most nightclubs I’ve been in?
Was the young lady in the bathroom a time or two, and not visable to the one taking the orders?
And was the young lady even ordering the drinks, or were the men in the group ordering and paying, which usually happens when I’ve been out.
Bottom line, this case is going to be next to impossible to prove, and so Davies is ruining what is left of his reputation with very slim odds of collecting on the risk. This decision is not that much smarter than the one he made to get in the car that night.
Voice of reason. And likely accurate, too.
I think most posters have a problem with the idea that someone can actually recover under these circumstances. Based on what I have read, it sounds like Davies might have a strong case. Of course, that assumes that what any of us have read is the complete and accurate story…
I guess it depends on how strict the dram shop law is and what constitutes prima facie evidence.
I’m really against them as a matter of a principle unless it’s the person is so blatantly intoxicated they can’t stand up, or have clearly slurred speech, etc. From a common sense perspective, it’s a bar, people are going to get intoxicated, but it’s their duty to consume alcohol in a responsible manner.
I just don’t think people should recover for something when it was their poor judgment that put them in the position to get hurt to begin with.
At a minimum, he broke curfew (admittedly this is legally insignificant) to go to a night club, and then accepted a ride home from an intoxicated person (that he said was not visibly intoxicated), and is now suing Red Bull and the night club for serving someone visibly intoxicated.
i’m a florida lawyer (but not personal injury). clearly, CD’s counsel have been in touch with the bar’s counsel and tried to reach a pre-suit settlement and, in the process, learned that their policy limit is $20M. what CD and the bar could perceive about the driver’s intoxication are two different things. CD does not serve alcohol for a living, while the bartender does and would be better equipped to recognize if a customer is drunk.
I have no problem with this lawsuit. and i think most of the posters would be too if CD hadn’t suddently developed a case of the floppies.
I got flamed to death a few years ago saying that he needed to take responsibility.
I think I said on another topic that fans would turn on him very fast if he did anything wrong.
Just saying….Told you so. 😉
Still enjoy watching him and I hope he keeps recovering.
Sounds like someone called Saul Goodman
Fair point. But a lot of states have presumptions re: whether an individual would be visibly intoxicated to a licensed entity selling alcoholic beverages (for example, blood alcohol content). You only need a preponderance of the evidence to win.
Side note for everyone that is really disturbed by the lawsuit: dram shop laws are designed to hold responsible entities that sell alcohol. The law is there as much as a preventative measure as a means of recovery for individuals that suffer damages as a result of the violation of the law. Also, the intoxicated individual may NOT recover under dram shop laws.
God Bless America, where you can file a lawsuit for burning yourself with coffee. Caution: Contents Hot
Maybe someone should sell bad decision insurance, so you can collect when you make a bad decision.
This lawsuit makes my skin crawl.
That being said, I still find Charlie’s physical recovery remarkable and inspiring.
… I said this EXACT phrase to myself when I saw this article. Great minds think alike.
Wow…. the excuses keep coming. Look at his goal production with and without Pontius on the field. He should sue Pontius for breaking his leg. Without Chris spoon feeding him balls Davies is quickly becoming mediocre. How about some work rate, stop diving like an Argentinian, and get in shape. Sad…
Very weak move, CD.
I concur that he is rapidly squandering any remaining good will.
so what its illegal to get drunk now? how does a bartender know if your driving or not? this is terrible…
Actually, in most jurisdictions the bar is liable if they continue to serve to someone who is clearly intoxicated.
Seedy9 continues to be himself.
Not a DC lawyer but thank you for clarifying the dram shop contributory negligence defense.
If she wasn’t visibly intoxicated to Charlie, who was with her at the end of the night, then I think it’s going to be pretty difficult to prove that the bar knew she was intoxicated.
CD20
I was a bartender a number of years ago here in Ohio, and was told not to serve to people visibly drunk as it is against the law and we could get sued or fined.
+1
Davies willingly gets into a car with an intoxicated person. Not only that, he allows the girl to drive.
I can’t wait to hear what the judge says.
Hey who else can say they battle the New York Red Bulls on an off the field. To me he going above and beyond the call of duty for a player.
But then I also agree with everyone else. Your decision Charlie. Should’ve taken a cab.
Davies should sue Massengill because after he recovered from the accident he turned into a big dooshbag.
Grant,
DC does have dram shop laws so the bar can be liable.
However, it also is a pure contributory negligence state, which, as I’ve stated below for the non-legal types, means that if he is shown to be at fault at ALL for his own injuries, he loses the case.
+1
Completely agree. Davies is trying to absolve himself of all responsibility, when he has to take some of it. He chose to get in the car with her. He chose not to stop her from driving. He chose to be there.
They’re not responsible for throwing a party. They’re not responsible for checking blood-alcohol levels when she leaves. Even if they stopped serving her, it doesn’t mean that she wouldn’t have been drunk while driving home.
Frankly, I think less of Davies for filing the suit.
I think it might have been video not an article, but I could be mistaken.
I wonder what MLS, being single entity, thinks of a player they are paying and have an option to buy suing one of their team owners for practically MLS expansion fee money…
Aaaaaand Davies continues to squander any remaining reputation he once had
Sir, you are correct. CD9 has his hand out and is CLEARLY looking for a settlement. It’s likely an admission that he realizes a big money contract will never come his way.
This lawsuit is in poor taste and says a lot about CD9. I was rooting for him…no more.
Im a DCU and USMNT supporter… I hope he doesn’t return to either next year. The guy has no sense of responsiblity, seems to be really concerned about himself tho.
dead on.
As a lawyer, you should understand that to state a dramshop claim, the question is whether the intoxicated individual appeared visibly intoxicated to the entity that sold the alcoholic beverages. What everyone else saw is only relevant to the extent it provides evidence that the individual would have appeared intoxicated to the people selling the alcohol.
Also, in DC, contributory negligence is not a defense to a dram shop claim.
“First, I am nearly positive that Charlie stated somewhere in one of his interviews that Espinoza didn’t look drunk to him.”
You’re right, he said that in some media interview, fairly recently, I think just in the last year or so. Hopefully the opposing lawyers will find it.
Hmm, sounds difficult to prove, but I suppose that’s what a team of high-priced attorneys is for. Regardless of the merits of the lawsuit, Charlie has once again proven he’s an a$$.
+1, I lost respect for him a long time ago. He’s a waste of talent. He needs to find some pride and integrity.
I should clarify my first point.
The article states that “The companies are accused of continuing to serve alcohol to Maria Alejandra Espinoza, even though, according to the suit, she ‘became visibly intoxicated.'”
I distinctly remember reading an article where Charlie says that she didn’t look drunk to him.
I’m a lawyer and I have a major issue with this lawsuit.
First, I am nearly positive that Charlie stated somewhere in one of his interviews that Espinoza didn’t look drunk to him.
Second, the last I checked, DC is a contributory negligence state, meaning that if you contributed at all to your own injuries, you cannot recover anything. I’m not sure how you can possibly argue that Charlie’s decisions didn’t contribute to his injuries.
Chicken s**t from cd9. YOU made the decision to get in that car. Take some responsibility for your own actions.
lol. Davies’ lawyer, ladies & gentlemen!
Im actually in Torts class right now and we are going over dram shop laws… haha
I lost some of the respect I had for him….
I see what you did there 😀
Between this and the diving, Divies is losing respect points quickly
With someone who according to his lawsuit was visibly intoxicated. And I believe speeding.
And then there was the incident in France where he was driving with a teammate who was either drunk or didn’t have a license (I forget which), where he hopped into the driver’s seat and lied to the police by telling them he had been the one driving.
Maybe Sochaux and the US soccer team should sue Davies for being such a f…up.
Chris, unfortunately in a lot of states (not sure about DC) the Bar is liable if they serve drinks to clearly intoxicated patrons. However it’s a stupid law and I completely agree with you. But Charlie may have a case here.
That lawsuit is gonna be a flop.
You may want to revise that third sentence. It doesn’t seem to make much sense.
Davies, look in the mirror.
Get real Charlie. This lawsuit is an embarrassment. The bar is certainly not responsible for keeping track of drinks consumed per customer, or how each customer’s getting home. Each person in that car that night made a terrible decision by choosing to enter that car. Take some responsiblity Charlie.
+1 – beat me to it.
Davies would have no need for lawsuits if he hadn’t broken curfew and gotten into a car with someone who was drunk.