Adamowicz et al., v. Ryan, Burton, Ahlf and Bro Retail Group

CV2006-007309

Settlement: $3 million (February 6, 2008)

Richard M. Gerry, Esq.

Phoenix, Arizona, personal injury attorney Richard Gerry focuses on serious personal injury claims. Over the past 27 years, juries have awarded Richard's clients multi-million-dollar verdicts to compensate for wrongful deaths and catastrophic injuries. His experience ranges from automobile cases to complex litigation involving freeway design. Appearing before the Arizona Supreme Court, the Arizona Court of Appeals and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Richard has tried and won cases that have established new legal precedents to protect the rights of injured clients.

This Arizona wrongful death case was a tragedy that, in addition to claiming the lives of two motorists, proved disastrous for multiple families – for dramatically different reasons.

The Adamowicz lawsuit involves the wrongful death of a 68-year-old woman, Mrs. Adamowicz, who was killed in a head-on collision with a vehicle driven by a 17-year-old girl who was trying to pass another vehicle.

The 17-year-old driver was also killed in the collision. Earlier that evening, she had purchased an 18-pack of beer at a convenience store and attended a party at a private residence, rented by a 20-year-old man, where she participated in beer-chugging games. At the time of the accident, she had a blood alcohol level of 0.18. She also had a history of alcohol-related arrests and a pending charge of driving after consuming alcohol and smoking marijuana.

Mrs. Adamowicz’s three adult children brought a wrongful death claim against the girl’s estate and other defendants, including the girl’s parents, the convenience store, the 20-year-old host of the party, and the party host’s parents.

The Girl’s Parents. The plaintiffs’ claim against the girl’s parents alleged that they were liable for entrusting a vehicle to a minor who had a history of abusing alcohol and drugs, and that they had the statutory right to revoke her ability to drive and the duty to prevent her from having access to a vehicle.
Convenience Store. Witnesses confirmed that the store sold alcohol to minors and had a reputation among high school students as a place that did not check IDs. The plaintiffs alleged that the clerk at the convenience store knew the teenage driver was a minor and, on prior occasions, had sold alcohol to her and to other minors. The plaintiffs further alleged that the convenience store violated statutory laws prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors directly or indirectly; and violated its common law duty to take reasonable steps to prevent minors from directly or indirectly getting access to alcohol and indirectly furnishing a statutorily controlled substance to a third party.

The Party Host. With respect to the 20-year-old party host, the plaintiffs alleged that:

• he routinely hosted drinking parties for minors and underage friends at his rented home;

• at the party, he initially took the car keys away from the girl because she was so intoxicated, but later returned the keys to her;

• after the deaths of the girl and Mrs. Adamowicz, he continued to have the same kind of parties for under-age friends; and

• he violated A.R.S. § 4-244(9) by directly or indirectly, furnishing, disposing of, giving, or causing to be furnished, disposed of or given, alcohol to a person under the legal drinking age; A.R.S. § 4-244(14) by furnishing alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person; A.R.S. § 4-241(D) by being under the legal drinking age and soliciting others to purchase, give, serve or furnish alcohol contrary to the law; and A.R.S. § 4-241(G) by requesting or receiving alcohol from any person with the intent of giving it to a person under the legal drink age.

The Host’s Parents. As for the parents of the host, the plaintiffs alleged that they were vicariously liable for their 20-year-old son and that, from a prior DUI conviction and consumption of alcohol while in high school, they were aware of his propensity to violate the alcohol laws.

Settlement. In the end, the parties settled for a total of $3 million. The insurance company that insured the girl’s vehicle paid the policy limit of $1.5 million. The remaining $1.5 million came from:

• the girl’s parents ($400,000);

• the party host and his parents ($700,000);

• the owner of the home rented by the party host ($50,000); and

• the convenience store ($350,000).