@ladybeachbum :
Your not-as it does happen. You prolly have Hired/non-owned ins. on your auto policy (you prolly do), limits are normally 1 million. Covers you in the above situation, or if one of your employees is driving their vehicle on company duties and has a wreck and they sue the company.

@cador : I know you are right but it seems a joint decision UNLESS the girls did not know he was drinking. It is just sad we have to be discussing something so avoidable. Call someone...don't drive.

@cador : legally, maybe, but in reality actions have consequences and we should all be teaching our children this. If they had hit and killed two innocent victims, would will still be calling them victims? If the driver had died and the passengers survived, the passengers would be getting the blame.

@lynnsgirl : All teens have been guilty at one point or another and he just happened to be caught with his pants down. Not saying it's right but he got caught with the worst consequences. The store and the employee should be held with some accountability for serving under age kids... period! Not because they caused the accident but providing an underage patron whether it be that night or previous nights. The kids knew where to go.

@cador : I am sure we do have on the company insurance because I added limits about a year ago when our girl was traveling a lot. I knew she probably had minimum insurance. My United card covers the rental car as #1 source which most people think their card does but only a few are #1. It cost $100 a year for the card but cheaper than buying insurance at the rental agency.

@yomom : not all teens. There are plenty who don't drink.

The store should be closed down and Romeo go to jail.

@Davie18 : unless the owner of the store knew what was going on or was negligent, they should not be punished for the illegal activity of an employee.

@lynnsgirl : Thanks for posting. I hadn't read/heard that the girls had been drinking, but seemed strange. 3 bottles of MD20/20 went somewhere. If it is true, all 3 had been drinking then all 3 made bad decisions.
It was mentioned that they were at a Quinceanera Reunion Party hosted by Gomez. A good friend of mine planned Quinceanera parties and per her comments there were a lot of Adults present for the duration of the party. She had said that with large extended families, there were more adults than kids. I don't know how a Q Reunion Party differs.

From one of the news links from today, a quote from Smith's attorney regarding the lawsuit...what a ******:
"Smith's attorney, Chip Lew, said. "It is regrettable, but expected that folks would compound this tragedy in the name of money."Folks? In the name of money? Really?? They are the parents of girls who they will never see again. He's portraying them to be like slip-and-fall lawsuit schiesters, by his statement.

@tflea : Very true. the shame is a million $ umbrella is about $30 a month.

@cador : Are you an attorney?

@ladybeachbum : The issue is whether or not the deceased girls contributory negligence, if any, proximately caused the damages. I feel for all parties involved, but from a legal standpoint the girls decisions are irrelevant because their decision to get in the vehicle did not proximately cause their death.

@UNREAL :
Nope.

@cador : I can assure you nobody will be going after assets. The plaintiffs will settle with Jaggar and his family for policy limits and then focus on the store because the store likely has plenty of coverage.In fact, if you watch the news story you have already seen the attention being directed to the store. Also, whether or not the parents owned the car is irrelevant unless a claim for negligent entrustment can be established and proved. If Jagger didn't have a license or had a history of driving recklessly and the parents knew it, then perhaps a negligent entrustment claim is feasible. It all depends.