News (Media Awareness Project) - US PA: Editorial: Ecstasy Death Lawsuit Raises Difficult |
Title: | US PA: Editorial: Ecstasy Death Lawsuit Raises Difficult |
Published On: | 2002-03-08 |
Source: | Observer-Reporter (PA) |
Fetched On: | 2008-01-24 18:30:26 |
ECSTASY DEATH LAWSUIT RAISES DIFFICULT QUESTIONS
No one can deny that the death of a 16-year-old girl who took the drug
Ecstasy at Star Lake Amphitheater last year was tragic. But the far-
ranging lawsuit her father filed this week in Allegheny County Court raises
some difficult questions.
The wrongful death suit names as defendants the amphitheater itself, five
of the girl's friends and, most questionably, the mother of one those
friends who allowed the girl to be brought into her home.
Brandy French was attending a concert at Star Lake with her friends, one of
whom shared Ecstasy with her in a ladies room. She became ill shortly
after, had difficulty walking and was vomiting. She was taken to the home
of one boy and was put to bed. Three hours later, emergency help was
called, but paramedics said Brandy was dead when they arrived.
Brandy's father claims that Star Lake's security people should have
recognized something was wrong with Brandy and gotten medical attention for
her. If only from the standpoint of deep pockets, we suppose the
amphitheater is an obvious defendant.
The suit says that her friends were also responsible because they knew she
had taken Ecstasy and should have realized she was seriously sick. But
these were all contemporaries - the oldest is 21 - and like most people of
that age undoubtedly didn't believe Ecstasy was dangerous, let alone
deadly. At least one of the girls is 17 and, like Brandy, legally a child.
The biggest reach, however, is making a defendant of Rosalind Hopkins, in
whose house Brandy died. Even though she said the young people told her
repeatedly that Brandy had consumed only alcohol and needed to sleep off
its effects, the suit claims Hopkins was responsible for her death.
The law says that people who begin to render aid to someone in distress are
responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the person. Hopkins,
like Brandy's young friends, was thus required to provide her "reasonable
care," according to the lawsuit.
What are the practical ramifications here? Should Brandy's friends have
simply abandoned her at Star Lake to protect themselves from liability?
Should parents refuse to allow a child's sick friend into their house, or,
if a guest becomes ill, order her to leave immediately? Or should they call
an ambulance, possibly at their own expense, just in case?
We think this may go beyond just the American fondness for damage suits.
There is a mindset that holds there are no accidents, that everything bad
that happens has to be somebody's fault, that the guilty person or persons
must be punished. So, Brandy didn't die because she immaturely believed
Ecstasy was harmless - as did her friends. Hopkins wasn't just a kind lady
who took the young guests at their words, as many other parents might have
done.
No, you round up everybody in sight and hand out the appropriate
punishment, which in this case seems to be bankruptcy.
No one can deny that the death of a 16-year-old girl who took the drug
Ecstasy at Star Lake Amphitheater last year was tragic. But the far-
ranging lawsuit her father filed this week in Allegheny County Court raises
some difficult questions.
The wrongful death suit names as defendants the amphitheater itself, five
of the girl's friends and, most questionably, the mother of one those
friends who allowed the girl to be brought into her home.
Brandy French was attending a concert at Star Lake with her friends, one of
whom shared Ecstasy with her in a ladies room. She became ill shortly
after, had difficulty walking and was vomiting. She was taken to the home
of one boy and was put to bed. Three hours later, emergency help was
called, but paramedics said Brandy was dead when they arrived.
Brandy's father claims that Star Lake's security people should have
recognized something was wrong with Brandy and gotten medical attention for
her. If only from the standpoint of deep pockets, we suppose the
amphitheater is an obvious defendant.
The suit says that her friends were also responsible because they knew she
had taken Ecstasy and should have realized she was seriously sick. But
these were all contemporaries - the oldest is 21 - and like most people of
that age undoubtedly didn't believe Ecstasy was dangerous, let alone
deadly. At least one of the girls is 17 and, like Brandy, legally a child.
The biggest reach, however, is making a defendant of Rosalind Hopkins, in
whose house Brandy died. Even though she said the young people told her
repeatedly that Brandy had consumed only alcohol and needed to sleep off
its effects, the suit claims Hopkins was responsible for her death.
The law says that people who begin to render aid to someone in distress are
responsible for taking appropriate steps to protect the person. Hopkins,
like Brandy's young friends, was thus required to provide her "reasonable
care," according to the lawsuit.
What are the practical ramifications here? Should Brandy's friends have
simply abandoned her at Star Lake to protect themselves from liability?
Should parents refuse to allow a child's sick friend into their house, or,
if a guest becomes ill, order her to leave immediately? Or should they call
an ambulance, possibly at their own expense, just in case?
We think this may go beyond just the American fondness for damage suits.
There is a mindset that holds there are no accidents, that everything bad
that happens has to be somebody's fault, that the guilty person or persons
must be punished. So, Brandy didn't die because she immaturely believed
Ecstasy was harmless - as did her friends. Hopkins wasn't just a kind lady
who took the young guests at their words, as many other parents might have
done.
No, you round up everybody in sight and hand out the appropriate
punishment, which in this case seems to be bankruptcy.
Member Comments |
No member comments available...