Report: Davies reaches settlement with businesses that served drunk driver



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.

This entry was posted in Americans Abroad, MLS- D.C. United, U.S. Men's National Team. Bookmark the permalink.

122 Responses to Report: Davies reaches settlement with businesses that served drunk driver

  1. Slyboy says:

    what ever happened to personal responsibility. Davies should be ashamed, and so should Espinoza

  2. ChrisTheLSUTiger says:

    Davies claimed that Maria Espinoza, the driver of the car, was “clearly intoxicated”

    Then don’t get in the F-ing car with her you idiot.

  3. dcm says:

    I’d like to meet the person who, at 22, didn’t make a decision as simple as this that COULD have lead to the same situation. Unless you aholes are Puritan Right-Wing Christians, have a little respect for a tragic situation.

  4. Test says:


  5. Skeeter says:

    The whole story is sad.. I was present at Azteca.. probably the highlight of his career.

    One bad choice and it’s all over

  6. fifawitz1313 says:

    I root for Davies, but this is a joke. I would not have settled with him if I was the club. It seems like an admission of stupidity by Davies that he got into a car with a “clearly intoxicated” girl. I would say that the fault lies with the people drinking. How could the club know that they were going to drive? Maybe…maybe the family of Espinoza could have a claim, but the fact that Davies is benefiting in any way just seems like a complete distortion of the civil court system.

  7. Gnarls says:

    Add this to the list of infamous frivolous lawsuits:
    Man sues McD’s for burning himself with hot coffee.
    Guy falls off ladder, sues ladder company.
    Man in phonebooth hit by drunk driver, sues phone company.
    Charlie Davies gets in a car with a DRUNK GIRL, sues bar.

    (Those are all real and honest lawsuits.)

  8. drew11 says:

    Sorry, two bad choices. 1) Breaking NT curfew to party and 2) getting in the car with a drunk behind the wheel.

  9. Yusef says:

    That’s one of the problems. We are culturally too comfortable with drunk driving in this country. Happens with people leaving almost every bar, club, lounge, and restaurant that serves alcohol almost every single night. Truly tragic.

  10. fifawitz1313 says:

    DCM- I don’t think people are upset about the fact that a group of young kids went out partying. My problem is that they drove and that now after the fact Davies is placing the blame on the club and not owning up to his own mistake. He should not get anything of monetary value from this settlement.

  11. Slyboy says:

    Sure, i Have, but i didn’t blame anyone but myself. And you know what, at 22, i knew about getting a cap…its not like davies did not have the cash for it.

  12. Shane says:

    yes it’s difficult not to reach that conclusion. but we all know how poorly run red bull establishments can be

  13. Slyboy says:


  14. J Dog says:

    Why I hate lawyers #472

  15. Darwin says:

    We need more bike lanes and public transportation in this country.

  16. JoeMormon says:


  17. dcm says:

    1. I’m sure that he been through plenty of shame already, your comment is unnecessary.
    2. My comment was for LSU guy that called him an idiot.
    3. I agree that him suing the bar is rather odd. I wonder if somehow he is trying to help ease the punishment on the driver.

  18. Shane says:

    If you knew the details of the McD’s coffee case you might not feel that way. McDs superheats their coffee and knew it could result in severe burns but they did it anyway cause there data showed it sold more coffee. McD executive showed no sympathy for the victim in court and no indication that they would change their practices. What seemed like an outrages award in damages by the jury was actually just one day’s worth of coffee sales for McD.

  19. Shane says:

    sorry correction, “their” and “outrageous”

  20. Zero says:

    It’s never your fault
    It’s never your faaaault
    Always the victim
    It’s never your fault.

  21. TheFrenchOne says:

    until you need one

  22. Kevin_Amold says:

    This a-hole Puritan Right-Wing Christian has respect for the tragedy of this situation. I also recognize that a lot of terrible decisions were made that night by several normally intelligent and decent people.

  23. Dank says:

    Actually, the old lady who sued MacDonalds for being burned by thier coffee suffered third degree burns and was in the hospital for several weeks… it wasn’t frivolous.

    link to

  24. Vic says:

    I agree that this is very hypocritical of Charlie Davies. However, lawsuits aren’t often about justice, they’re about money.

  25. Rlw2020 says:

    Or dont let her drive 100+ mph or whatever they were doing. Just stupid

  26. Gnarls, it was a woman who sued McDonalds over the coffee. Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants

    I agree that Charlie made a bad decision and has to bear that burden for a long time. I would note though, that bars who serve people that are already drunk also make bad decisions and the way we compensate their victims is through lawsuits.

    I like Yusef’s comments above. The problem is big, IMO. There are a lot of sinners out there who shouldn’t be casting stones at Charlie.

  27. dcm says:

    fair nuff.

  28. Darwin says:

    so…they cancel out? What is your point?

  29. dcm says:

    My point exactly! Well said.

  30. Rigazzi's on the Hill says:

    Or devout Muslims…

  31. Rlw2020 says:

    I grew up nearby and same age as CD9 and it certainly was a great lesson to all of us. But still i can not defend such stupidity. So disappointed in this

  32. dcm says:

    People sure are brave when they write anonymous comments on a blog. We have all seen interviews with Davies. He is a great person, humble, polite. I would love to see these guys remind him, to his face, that he deserves everything that is coming to him because of the mistake he made. I’m sure he has no idea what guilt, shame, remorse is all about.

  33. Darwin says:

    Any way we can bleed the corporate leeches that feed off of our country and politics will be an improvement. That’s how we got seatbelt laws. Most multinationals couldn’t give a crap if they put out a dangerous product.

  34. Sarasota says:

    I agree totally with Chris and Slyboy! I was always a huge Charlie Davies fan, but:
    1. He was breaking curfew
    2. He got in a car with a drunk driver.

    It’s sad that in our society today, no one is responsible or accountable for their personal actions. Everyone is a “victim” of something. It’s always someone elses’s fault. What ever happened to integrity and being an adult role model for kids! A sad sign of the times and not just in sports.

  35. meowmix says:

    What are you talking about? He made a mistake and the results were tragic. Lots of 22 year olds have probably made the same mistake.

    The point everyones making is the fact that he’s suing and getting money out of it. Here, you try working at a bar. There are lots and lots of drunk people. There comes a point where it looks like someones going to yack on the bar, and then you clearly don’t serve to them, but lots of people are “clearly intoxicated” when your serving to them. You have no idea what they’re going to do when they leave the bar. Nor should you. Why don’t we assume these people can have personal responisiility. How is Davies the victim here? How does he deserve compensation from the bar? Please explain.

  36. Darwin says:

    You all sound like a lynch mob, and it is making me sick.

  37. drew11 says:

    What happened? His career has cratered and obviously he needs the money.

  38. dcm says:

    Before you fly of the handle, you need to read all of the comments above. My comments are not related to the lawsuit, which I agree, is strange.

  39. FulhamDC says:

    If Davies had not broken curfew, he could have boarded the Metro’s Orange line a couple blocks from the party and taken it to within 200 yeards of the team hotel.

  40. DCP says:

    There are plenty of Taxis in the DC area and I am fairly certain that at that point Mr. Davies could have afforded to pay for one.

  41. Liga says:

    I worked in a bar in college and the NUMBER ONE most important thing we were taught was to keep a close eye on anyone drinking a lot.

    Bars hold a lion’s share of liability for overserving someone who has legally lost the ability to make rational decisions.

    Yes it’s irresponsible to over drink, but at that point it’s even more irresponsible to continue serving someone incapable of saying no simply because you want their money. We had to sit through a lecture at least once a month on this.

    Bars can lose their licenses if they consistently over serve people and it’s a very real problem.

  42. BBB says:

    People are upset because he does NOT deserve everything that is coming to him. ($$$)

  43. FulhamDC says:

    Oops, I meant Blue line.

  44. Sarasota says:

    Well said, my man!!! And by the way I’m not a Puritan.

    It would be nice for legitimate soccer sites such as SBI to red card foul mouths like DCM. “Unless you aholes are Puritan Right-Wing Christians…” What? Pathetic!
    Who needs this adolescent crap?

    Can’t we just discuss soccer without hurling juvenile insults at anyone with a different opinion. BTW, “Puritan Right Wing Christians” first settled this country, suffered greatly from illness and exposure, and perservered against all odds to found the greatest country the world has ever known. Not that anyone cares.

  45. Gnarls says:

    That’s very sad. I don’t want to get off the original issue (Davies lawsuit), but couldn’t the argument be made that it’s unwise to drive a car with an open cup of coffee between one’s legs? McD’s was servings its coffee too hot, that’s why they lost the suit and paid out $160k. The fact remains, if she hadn’t put a scalding hot cup of coffee between her legs, she wouldn’t have been burned. There’s something to be said for a lack of common sense.

    That brings us full circle. Davies lacked common sense. You never get in a car with a drunk driver. Ever.

  46. Tyler K says:

    I believe that under the law there is a special relationship between the bar and its patrons, which as Liga said, means that they are under a legal duty to not keep serving people who are wasted/hammered,etc. Basically if you know or have reason to know that someone is in an helpless/weakened (super drunk qualifies) state then by contributing to that situation in the form of serving them MORE alcohol you’re making the situation worse and that is what is seems to be the claim in this situation.

  47. Sad Ronaldo says:

    The notion that you, I, or anyone can ascertain that Charlie is “a great person, humble, polite” based on TV interviews is ridiculous.

    If you don’t know him, you don’t know him.

  48. Gnarls says:

    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.

  49. Gnarls says:

    See my reply above.

  50. Gnarls says:

    edit: …the bartender would have paid particularly close attention to…

  51. Sad Ronaldo says:

    Your playing the race card is pretty sickening too.

  52. Sad Ronaldo says:

    The problem is not everyone who is super drunk appears to be super drunk.

  53. Gnarls says:

    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.

  54. kevdflb says:

    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.

  55. kevdflb says:

    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.

  56. ChrisTheLSUTiger says:

    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.

  57. DH says:

    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.

  58. dcm says:

    curious to know if DH stand for d*ck head.

  59. The real tragedy says:

    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.

  60. Darwin says:

    No, that was you.

  61. Seriously? says:

    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 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.

  62. Liga says:

    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.

  63. shutupayouface says:

    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.

  64. elgringorico says:

    agreed. this is why other countries mock our legal system. tort reform needed.

  65. Darwin says:

    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.

  66. Darwin says:

    I bet there was an open bar at this thing too, with even less bartender-patron interaction.

  67. Darwin says:

    I know, right? Utterly tasteless.

  68. Matt C in Tampa says:

    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.

  69. Darwin says:

    Puritans and Pilgrims colonized our country. Deists and athiests made it what it is today.

  70. Tom says:

    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.

  71. UMN says:

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

  72. Arkie says:

    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?

  73. UMN says:

    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.

  74. UMN says:

    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.

  75. bizzy says:

    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.

  76. DH says:

    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.

  77. BigBirdLenny says:

    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.

  78. Kevin_Amold says:

    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.

  79. BK says:

    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.


    A DC United fan

  80. Darwin says:

    Our country was not founded on Christian principles…unless you were being sarcastic.

  81. The real tragedy says:

    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).

  82. ChrisTheLSUTiger says:

    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.

  83. Rex says:

    No accountability in his private life and none in is sports life. That’s why he is a washed up bust.

  84. Eugene says:

    So if Davies saw that she was “clearly intoxicated”, why the hell did he get in the car with her?!

  85. Scott says:

    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.

  86. DH says:

    Agree 100%

  87. MMV says:

    Because he was clearly intoxicated, too and couldn’t make a rational decision??

  88. J Dod says:

    This is reason #271.

  89. DL says:

    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.

  90. DL says:

    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.

  91. Scott says:

    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.

  92. meowmix says:

    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.

  93. meowmix says:

    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.

  94. meowmix says:

    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

  95. KenC says:

    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?

  96. KenC says:

    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.

  97. inkedAG says:

    Finally, some sanity.

  98. KenC says:

    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?

  99. KenC says:

    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.

  100. jmadsen says:

    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.

  101. KenC says:

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

  102. KenC says:

    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.

  103. KenC says:

    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.

  104. Darwin says:

    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?

  105. Darwin says:

    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.

  106. Ryan says:

    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.

  107. DCP says:

    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.

  108. ChrisTheLSUTiger says:


  109. Ashley Watson says:

    Charles , if he was not drunk, he could have drove instead.

  110. Kevin_Amold says:

    No. The only thing I’m behind is the times…

  111. Seriously? says:

    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.

  112. Seriously? says:

    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.

  113. BigBirdLenny says:

    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?

  114. ThaDeuce says:

    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.

  115. ThaDeuce says:

    Read “The Law” by Bastiat.

  116. ThaDeuce says:

    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.

  117. ThaDeuce says:

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

  118. ThaDeuce says:

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

  119. ThaDeuce says:

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