“If an untested and novel legal theory succeeds, the wife and brother of a binge drinker with a string of drunken driving arrests could be held civilly liable for the death of a bicyclist because they supplied the car, insurance and alcohol to the driver. …The suit seeks damages from the wife and bar owner/brother of Joseph Lynchard, 74, of Santa Rosa, Calif.” According to plaintiff’s lawyer Patrick Emery, “Lynchard’s wife transferred all his assets to her name after an earlier accident and got him auto insurance. His brother, owner of Eddie’s Bar, bought Lynchard a pickup truck and supplied him with drinks the day of the accident. All this, Emery argues, shows a conspiracy to commit an illegal act, allowing Lynchard to drive while drunk.” A judge has allowed the suit to proceed to discovery. (Pamela A. MacLean, National Law Journal, Aug. 15).
“Untested Conspiracy Theory Seeks to Expand DUI Liability”
“If an untested and novel legal theory succeeds, the wife and brother of a binge drinker with a string of drunken driving arrests could be held civilly liable for the death of a bicyclist because they supplied the car, insurance and alcohol to the driver. …The suit seeks damages from the wife and bar owner/brother […]
One Comment
Perhaps this is not as outrageous as we might initially consider. Obveously we lack many facts of the case, but on the premises presented in the post, it seems as if the charge of enabling might be true. The defendant, suspecting potential future liability from illegal acts he fully intended to continue (drunk driving) transferred his wealth to his wife’s name to protect his assets from future judgement. Read that way and it certainly could constitute a conspiracy. Why would the plaintiff need to go after the wife with the assets? Because the defendant moved them in an asset protection plan.