Noah Count was driving his Ford Escape home from a bar, when he struck a tree and the passenger compartment collapsed causing him serious injured. He sued Ford on the grounds that his car was not crashworthy, and he sued the bar for selling him the alcohol.
Unfortunately, Noah Count had a blood alcohol content of 0.15%, which is twice the legal limit. In all states, the legal limit is defined as 0.08% (DUI & DWI in South Carolina, n.d.). Therefore, Noah Count was driving illegally at the time of his crash (DUI & DWI in South Carolina, n.d.). Nonetheless, Count could sue Ford for a product liability, because regardless of him wrecking while operating a vehicle while intoxicated, the car would not have withstood a crash because it was lacking safety. Count could sue the bar as well for serving him alcohol and for letting him drive while intoxicated. In a similar case, Binakonsky v. Ford Motor Co., Binakonsy was driving a Ford van with a blood alcohol content of 0.14%, when he can into a tree. The door jammed in the wreck and the van caught on fire, trapping Binakonsky. He was declared dead upon arrival. His family sued Ford Motor Co. for a defective fuel …show more content…
If Count was in a state that had dram shop laws, which are laws that hold the bar accountable for any damages that occur as a result of an intoxicated patron, he would have a stronger case. However, states that do not have dram shop laws, follow case law (Haafke v. Mitchell, 1984). Regardless, the bar should argue that Count did not look visibly intoxicated and they should not be held responsible. In a similar case, Haafke vs. Mitchell, Haafke was killed when Mitchell wrecked their vehicle after being allowed to leave a bar intoxicated in the state of Iowa. Dram shop laws are in effect in Iowa, which is why the bar was found to be responsible for allowing their patrons to leave and drive intoxicated (Haafke v. Mitchell,
Unfortunately, Noah Count had a blood alcohol content of 0.15%, which is twice the legal limit. In all states, the legal limit is defined as 0.08% (DUI & DWI in South Carolina, n.d.). Therefore, Noah Count was driving illegally at the time of his crash (DUI & DWI in South Carolina, n.d.). Nonetheless, Count could sue Ford for a product liability, because regardless of him wrecking while operating a vehicle while intoxicated, the car would not have withstood a crash because it was lacking safety. Count could sue the bar as well for serving him alcohol and for letting him drive while intoxicated. In a similar case, Binakonsky v. Ford Motor Co., Binakonsy was driving a Ford van with a blood alcohol content of 0.14%, when he can into a tree. The door jammed in the wreck and the van caught on fire, trapping Binakonsky. He was declared dead upon arrival. His family sued Ford Motor Co. for a defective fuel …show more content…
If Count was in a state that had dram shop laws, which are laws that hold the bar accountable for any damages that occur as a result of an intoxicated patron, he would have a stronger case. However, states that do not have dram shop laws, follow case law (Haafke v. Mitchell, 1984). Regardless, the bar should argue that Count did not look visibly intoxicated and they should not be held responsible. In a similar case, Haafke vs. Mitchell, Haafke was killed when Mitchell wrecked their vehicle after being allowed to leave a bar intoxicated in the state of Iowa. Dram shop laws are in effect in Iowa, which is why the bar was found to be responsible for allowing their patrons to leave and drive intoxicated (Haafke v. Mitchell,