A wrongful death lawsuit filed Tuesday in Newton County Circuit Court by the father of a woman who was killed in a drunk driving crash claims Frank's Lounge, 2112 S. Main, Joplin, kept serving the driver even though the man was visibly intoxicated.
Dedrian Bridgett, 43, Carthage, was killed September 25 in a two-vehicle crash at East 44th and S. Main Street. A northbound black Toyota SUV was making a left turn onto 44th Street when it collided with a blue Harley Davidson motorcycle traveling southbound on Main. Bridgett was a passenger on the motorcycle, which was driven by Andrew Brill, 45, Carthage, who was charged with driving while intoxicated-death of another and is awaiting trial in Newton County Circuit Court. Brill is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit.
The lawsuit was filed by Dedrian Bridgett's father, Dearman Bridgett, Springfield, who is represented by William Warren Sachs of Aaron Sachs and Associates.
From the petition:
On September 25, 2024, Andrew Brill was a patron at Defendant’s bar/lounge. On September 25, 2024, Andrew Brill was visibly intoxicated while at Defendant’s bar/lounge. On September 25, 2024, Defendant Frank’s Lounge, LLC, through its agents and/or employees knowingly served intoxicating beverages to Andrew Brill when Defendant Frank’s Lounge, LLC, through its agents and/or employees knew or should have known that Andrew Brill was visibly intoxicated.After leaving Defendant Frank’s Lounge, LLC’s on September 25, 2024, Andrew Brill was involved in a motorcycle collision as a result of his intoxication. Deadrian Bridgett was a passenger on Andrew Brill’s motorcycle and because of the collision was ejected from the motorcycle.
Deadrian Bridgett died at the scene of the collision as a result of the collision related injuries.
The second count of the lawsuit charges Brill with negligence.
At the time and place of the collision, Defendant had the duty to exercise the highest
degree of care in the operation of his motorcycle.
Defendant was negligent in that:
He failed to keep a careful lookout;
He knew or by the exercise of the highest degree of care could have
known of the reasonable likelihood of a collision in time thereafter to have
stopped, slackened speed, and/or swerved, but Defendant failed to do so;
He failed to pay adequate attention to the roadway and the presence of
other vehicles;
and he operated his motorcycle while intoxicated.
12 comments:
Concrete is undefeated.
You really think it’s funny to say atuff like that about my mother? Say it to my face Mf.
Ya booze ya lose
.12 is mildly intoxicated. Heavily buzzed more like. He did this, not Frank's Lounge or anywhere/one else. No one forced the victim to ride with him, either. Litigious sleaze, like the Sachs, love cases like this.
So lemme see if I understand this correctly....the deceased persons family is suing the bar because their family member (who was likely also drinking) KNOWINGLY got on the back of a motorcycle and KNOWLINGLY rode down the street KNOWING that it was likely dangerous and KNOWING that they could possibly get killed by KNOWINGLY riding with an (alleged) drunk person....but this is the bar's fault? Typical not my fault mentality that lawyers seem to jump on these days. (eye roll)
I thought that the owners of drinking establishments were not supposed to continue to serve a patron who is visibly impaired…. Thoughts *
As sad as the entire situation is. That was my thought also. People have to start taking personal responsibility for themselves and all of these lawsuits like this need to stop.
How about realizing that some of the personal responsibility extends to businesses who possess a license to sell alcoholic beverages?
537.053. Sale of alcoholic beverage may be proximate cause of personal injuries or death — requirements — (dram shop law). — 1. Since the repeal of the Missouri Dram Shop Act in 1934 (Laws of 1933-34, extra session, page 77), it has been and continues to be the policy of this state to follow the common law of England, as declared in section 1.010, to prohibit dram shop liability and to follow the common law rule that furnishing alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons.
2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person. https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=537.053
That's true I was a bad tender and It was my responsibility to make sure they weren't so drunk that they couldn't drive boy did they get pissed but I may have saved a
couple lives
Should sue the manufacturer of the booze and the employees who made it.
Nope on this idea.
Alcohol is a legal product, that is legal to sell in ways regulated by government. It just happens that some people misuse it, that's why it's regulated by the government!
Just like guns and ammunition.
The Bartender should not overserve Alcohol to Patrons - Lawsuits! These two Motorcyclist - were they wearing Helmets - Which might have saved them in an Accident - Which if they did not wear Helmets - Doesn't the Driver have to have Insurance to cover health and medical Costs - and why do so many STUPID PEOPLE DRINK UNTIL THEY ARE INTOXICATED AND THINK THEY CAN GET HOME WITHOUT KILLING OTHERS??? Both the Driver and Passenger - Used TERRIBLE JUDGEMENT - Drinking and Driving and Riding Drunk...
In Missouri, riders 26 and older can choose not to wear a helmet if they have health insurance or other coverage providing medical benefits for motorcycle accidents, and proof of financial responsibility. However, insurance companies may argue for reduced compensation in a motorcycle accident if the rider wasn't wearing a helmet, according to some sources
Post a Comment