12:10 am - 08/09/2012

Parents of passenger who died in car crash with Ryan Dunn suing his estate

The parents of the passenger who was also killed in Ryan Dunn's fatal 2011 high speed car crash are suing the "Jackass" star's estate ... claiming Dunn was extremely drunk when he wrecked his Porsche and is responsible for killing their son.

TMZ broke the story ... Dunn had been drinking HEAVILY before he crashed his Porsche into a tree at 132 mph in Pennsylvania in June 2011 ... killing himself and his passenger Zachary Hartwell.

Now, Hartwell's parents have filed a lawsuit against Dunn's estate AND the bar where Dunn had been drinking before the crash ... claiming Barnaby's West Chester was negligent in serving Dunn after he was obviously hammered.

The Hartwells also claim Dunn was reckless and negligent by operating his vehicle while under the influence of alcohol ... and should not have been driving at extremely dangerous speeds.

Zach's parents are suing for unspecified damages ... claiming they've lost the services, guidance, and comfort of their son. And they want Dunn's estate to cover expenses associated with Zach's death ... including funeral costs.

Zach's parents are also suing on behalf of their son's estate ... claiming Dunn and the bar should pay for the "pre-impact fright, fear, pain and suffering" that Zach experienced before he died.

Zach's parents also want both parties to pay for the wages Zach would have earned during his lifetime.

Source: TMZ
sweet_honesty 9th-Aug-2012 12:25 am (UTC)
"So if he had got the alcohol from an off license or garage, they'd be liable? "

Do you not watch the news? Of course.

nin_o_zara 9th-Aug-2012 12:45 am (UTC)

I've never seen anything like this in the news. I'm surprised anywhere sells alcohol if this is the case. You learn something new everyday...
unconventional 9th-Aug-2012 12:58 am (UTC)
Bars are supposed to cut you off when you've had too much/are visibly too drunk. They can't always stop you from getting behind the wheel of a car, but they are supposed to stop serving you after a point. It's pretty rare someone can hide it when they're THAT drunk so they should have cut him off and done more than it seems they did. They do hold some responsibility over patrons they're serving.
nin_o_zara 9th-Aug-2012 01:03 am (UTC)
Like I said below, there is a difference.

I can see in this case where the bar might be liable, because they continued to serve someone who was clearly drunk.

That is different to the blanket statement 'bars are liable if a patron drinks and drives'.
sweet_honesty 9th-Aug-2012 01:20 am (UTC)
They sell alcohol by selling responsibly, ie not letting anyone in who's drunk, not selling to those who are drunk, making sure those who are drunk don't drive...
_losthope 9th-Aug-2012 03:19 am (UTC)
As I remember it's the 3rd Party Liability law.

TBH, I've always found the law ridiculous. Others shouldn't be responsible for someones actions. THEY opened their mouths and poured the alcohol down it, not the bar/restaurant. THEY chose to get behind the wheel and not call a taxi or a friend.
This page was loaded Jul 24th 2014, 8:02 pm GMT.