Well I Guess Their Alcohol Levels Were Jumping Around! Case 5: Drinking and Vandalism Jeffrey Cowart Patrick Gentile Jacob Thomas Tyler Huey

Relevant Facts  4 teenagers: Michael Kralek, Yvonne Auclaire, Steve Haines, and Jodi Porter went to the Bixby Frog Festival with the intention of drinking.  The salesmen at the beer stands were not told to check for IDs.  The teenagers spent the day getting drunk and playing on the beach until Yvonne cut her foot.

Relevant Facts  Michael convinced the group to break into a cabin for a bandage.  The group started to rough house in the cabin and destroyed the interior.  The family that owned the cabin, the Browns, came three days later and found the cabin destroyed.  They ended up paying $10,000 for repairs.

Relevant Facts  Eye witness accounts placed the teenagers at the scene.  Each teenager was given a $400 fine and 80 hours of community service.  The Browns also sued the festival planning committee for not checking the IDs at the beer stands.

Testimonies  Bill Brown(cabin owner)- He and his wife returned on July 24 and found it ruined. All their furniture was ruined and smashed and the vomit left a terrible odor. The break-in left them feeling extremely violated.  Patricia Kralek(Michael’s mother)- She agreed to let Michael go to the festival because she didn’t know they would be drinking. She is confused as to why they didn’t have a system for checking IDs.

Testimonies  Ed Rice(beer stand vendor)- He worked at Allen’s Liquor Store and was paid to work at the festival. Mr. Allen was the head of the festival planning committee and didn’t tell them to check for IDs although they do at the store.  Cheryl Knotts(member of the planning committee)- There had been incidents in the past with teens getting drunk and vandalizing property, however they decided to drop the subject at their meetings.

Testimonies  Jonathan Allen(chair of the planning committee)- They decided that for the sake of profit, they wouldn’t rope off areas for drinking and wouldn’t check for IDs because it would be too difficult. He made a profit off the beer stands and isn’t ashamed of what the teenagers did.  The four teenagers’ testimonies(since they were all the same)- No one at the festival asked for their IDs. None of them had ever vandalized anything until they were under the influence.

Additional Facts  Two out of the four teenagers said that it was Michael who convinced them to do things they wouldn’t normally do, such as breaking into the cabin and stealing alcohol once inside. The vendors at the beer stands weren't told to check for IDs and the planning committee didn’t make strict rules pertaining to alcohol, even though there had been incidents in the past.

Cases Used in Court  Jones vs Anytown Raceway- “In order to sue someone for negligence the plaintiff must prove the defendant had a responsibility they had to meet.” The festival planning committee had a responsibility to check for IDs at the festival.  Hacker vs Anytown American Legion- “When an intoxicated person causes harm to somebody else after consuming alcohol illegally, it is the sellers’ responsibility.” Should the owners of the beer stands be held responsible for what happened?

Cases Used in Court  Splett vs Wheeler- “An alcohol seller is not responsible for an injury because one person was sold alcohol and happened to cause the injury. There must be a connection between the sale, the consumption, and the injury.” This case states that if the teenagers had bought the alcohol but did not drink it and caused the damage, the vendors wouldn’t be held responsible.

Cases Used in Court  Holly vs Anytown Hotel- “The defendant being sued for negligence does not need to know about how they could cause an accident, but they should know that there would be an accident.” This shows that the teenagers knew that they took a risk drinking, but they did it anyway.  Lu vs Lopez- “An accident is considered foreseeable if the person of ordinary intelligence could see that an accident was possible.” This reinforces the fact that the teenagers knew what they were doing and should be held responsible.

Laws Used in Court  Anystate, USA Statue- Person under 21; illegal acts related to alcohol  It is illegal for anyone who has a license to sell liquor to anyone under the age of 21.  It is illegal for anyone under 21 to drink alcohol.

Laws Used in Court  Anystate, USA Statue: Civil Damages Act  If someone suffers an injury by an intoxicated person in any of the following ways: bodily harm, property damages, financial loss, and ability to work, the person who suffered the injury can sue the person who caused the intoxication based in illegal sale of alcohol.

Other Relevant Info  The legal drinking age is 21.  BAC for minors:  BAC for adult drivers:.08

What Should Happen?  The festival planning committee should be held responsible. Even though the teenagers did the vandalizing, it was their responsibility to check the teenagers for IDs and the failure to do so resulted in the destruction of the cabin.

Audio