Wednesday Kickoff: Davies files lawsuit, Capello drops Rooney hint and more

MLSMJ091011006

Photo by Michael Janosz/ISIphotos.com

D.C. United striker Charlie Davies has reportedly filed a $20 million lawsuit against the nightclub owner and party host that continued to serve alcohol to the woman that was behind the wheel on the night of the accident that tragically killed one passenger and severely injured Davies.

According to the Washington Post, Davies is filing his suit against Das Enterprises, the owner of the Shadow Room in Washington, D.C., and Red Bull North America, which hosted the party at the club a little more than two years ago.

The suit — which involves the company that owns the New York Red Bulls — claims that in addition to continuing to serve alcohol to Maria Alejandra Espinoza, the accident also caused permanent damage to Davies' body and altered his career path to the point that it prevented him from participating in the World Cup for the United States.

Here are a few more stories to get your day rolling:

CAPELLO HINTS TO ROONEY INCLUSION

There has been some speculation as to whether Wayne Rooney would be included on Fabio Capello's Euro 2012 squad after being banned for the first three games of the tournament. Speaking to reporters, Capello gave an indication of what he wants his squad to look like, and he seemed to hint that Rooney would be a part of it.

"The young players are really good and ready to play with the seniors, and the experience of the seniors is really important," Capello said. "During the games we need some leaders, people that know something. Jack Wilshere is incredible because he is so young. We also need the experience of John Terry, Rio Ferdianand and Scott Parker. You need this kind of player, plus Rooney, I hope."

GRONDONA KEEPS ARGENTINA POST

Even though he's come under scrutiny for alleged fraud and money laundering, Julio Grondona will remain president of the Argentine Football Association after winning re-election for his ninth term.

Grondona, 80, is a member of the FIFA executive committee, a close confidant to FIFA president Sepp Blatter and won unanimously to extend his reign to 2015. 

RANGERS TOPS LIVERPOOL IN FRIENDLY

In a rare October club friendly between UK powers, Rangers defeated Liverpool, 1-0, Tuesday at the Ibrox Stadium.

Lee McCulloch scored the only goal in the 20th minute to lift the Scottish champions, as both teams trotted out reserve-heavy lineups.

U.S. national team winger Alejandro Bedoya started and played 64 minutes for Rangers, while Maurice Edu and Carlos Bocanegra were not part of the squad.

—————————

What do you think of Davies' lawsuit? Think it's a no-brainer for Rooney to be included on the Euro roster? What do you think of Grondona remaining in power? Think Bedoya made the right choice by transferring to Rangers?

Share your thoughts below.

This entry was posted in European Soccer, FIFA, International Soccer, MLS- D.C. United. Bookmark the permalink.

152 Responses to Wednesday Kickoff: Davies files lawsuit, Capello drops Rooney hint and more

  1. ChrisTheLSUTiger says:

    Davies would have no need for lawsuits if he hadn’t broken curfew and gotten into a car with someone who was drunk.

  2. Paul Dickov says:

    +1 – beat me to it.

  3. chris says:

    Get real Charlie. This lawsuit is an embarrassment. The bar is certainly not responsible for keeping track of drinks consumed per customer, or how each customer’s getting home. Each person in that car that night made a terrible decision by choosing to enter that car. Take some responsiblity Charlie.

  4. Sad US fan says:

    Davies, look in the mirror.

  5. ivanomartin says:

    You may want to revise that third sentence. It doesn’t seem to make much sense.

  6. b says:

    That lawsuit is gonna be a flop.

  7. Grant says:

    Chris, unfortunately in a lot of states (not sure about DC) the Bar is liable if they serve drinks to clearly intoxicated patrons. However it’s a stupid law and I completely agree with you. But Charlie may have a case here.

  8. b says:

    With someone who according to his lawsuit was visibly intoxicated. And I believe speeding.

    And then there was the incident in France where he was driving with a teammate who was either drunk or didn’t have a license (I forget which), where he hopped into the driver’s seat and lied to the police by telling them he had been the one driving.

    Maybe Sochaux and the US soccer team should sue Davies for being such a f…up.

  9. mikey says:

    Between this and the diving, Divies is losing respect points quickly

  10. mikey says:

    I see what you did there :-D

  11. squirt-lover says:

    I lost some of the respect I had for him….

  12. jon says:

    Im actually in Torts class right now and we are going over dram shop laws… haha

  13. mikey says:

    lol. Davies’ lawyer, ladies & gentlemen!

  14. franky says:

    Chicken s**t from cd9. YOU made the decision to get in that car. Take some responsibility for your own actions.

  15. Dan says:

    I’m a lawyer and I have a major issue with this lawsuit.

    First, I am nearly positive that Charlie stated somewhere in one of his interviews that Espinoza didn’t look drunk to him.

    Second, the last I checked, DC is a contributory negligence state, meaning that if you contributed at all to your own injuries, you cannot recover anything. I’m not sure how you can possibly argue that Charlie’s decisions didn’t contribute to his injuries.

  16. Dan says:

    I should clarify my first point.

    The article states that “The companies are accused of continuing to serve alcohol to Maria Alejandra Espinoza, even though, according to the suit, she ‘became visibly intoxicated.'”

    I distinctly remember reading an article where Charlie says that she didn’t look drunk to him.

  17. Duck says:

    +1, I lost respect for him a long time ago. He’s a waste of talent. He needs to find some pride and integrity.

  18. chris says:

    Hmm, sounds difficult to prove, but I suppose that’s what a team of high-priced attorneys is for. Regardless of the merits of the lawsuit, Charlie has once again proven he’s an a$$.

  19. b says:

    “First, I am nearly positive that Charlie stated somewhere in one of his interviews that Espinoza didn’t look drunk to him.”

    You’re right, he said that in some media interview, fairly recently, I think just in the last year or so. Hopefully the opposing lawyers will find it.

  20. ko'd says:

    As a lawyer, you should understand that to state a dramshop claim, the question is whether the intoxicated individual appeared visibly intoxicated to the entity that sold the alcoholic beverages. What everyone else saw is only relevant to the extent it provides evidence that the individual would have appeared intoxicated to the people selling the alcohol.

    Also, in DC, contributory negligence is not a defense to a dram shop claim.

  21. dan says:

    dead on.

  22. Ex-Davies Fan says:

    Im a DCU and USMNT supporter… I hope he doesn’t return to either next year. The guy has no sense of responsiblity, seems to be really concerned about himself tho.

  23. kimo says:

    Sir, you are correct. CD9 has his hand out and is CLEARLY looking for a settlement. It’s likely an admission that he realizes a big money contract will never come his way.

    This lawsuit is in poor taste and says a lot about CD9. I was rooting for him…no more.

  24. Bryce says:

    Aaaaaand Davies continues to squander any remaining reputation he once had

  25. b says:

    I think it might have been video not an article, but I could be mistaken.

    I wonder what MLS, being single entity, thinks of a player they are paying and have an option to buy suing one of their team owners for practically MLS expansion fee money…

  26. WeatherManNX01 says:

    Completely agree. Davies is trying to absolve himself of all responsibility, when he has to take some of it. He chose to get in the car with her. He chose not to stop her from driving. He chose to be there.

    They’re not responsible for throwing a party. They’re not responsible for checking blood-alcohol levels when she leaves. Even if they stopped serving her, it doesn’t mean that she wouldn’t have been drunk while driving home.

    Frankly, I think less of Davies for filing the suit.

  27. Dan says:

    Grant,

    DC does have dram shop laws so the bar can be liable.

    However, it also is a pure contributory negligence state, which, as I’ve stated below for the non-legal types, means that if he is shown to be at fault at ALL for his own injuries, he loses the case.

  28. chupacabra says:

    Davies should sue Massengill because after he recovered from the accident he turned into a big dooshbag.

  29. Shane says:

    Hey who else can say they battle the New York Red Bulls on an off the field. To me he going above and beyond the call of duty for a player.

    But then I also agree with everyone else. Your decision Charlie. Should’ve taken a cab.

  30. deepm says:

    +1

    Davies willingly gets into a car with an intoxicated person. Not only that, he allows the girl to drive.

    I can’t wait to hear what the judge says.

  31. Steve C says:

    I was a bartender a number of years ago here in Ohio, and was told not to serve to people visibly drunk as it is against the law and we could get sued or fined.

  32. Dan says:

    Not a DC lawyer but thank you for clarifying the dram shop contributory negligence defense.

    If she wasn’t visibly intoxicated to Charlie, who was with her at the end of the night, then I think it’s going to be pretty difficult to prove that the bar knew she was intoxicated.

  33. Mouf says:

    Seedy9 continues to be himself.

  34. Andrew says:

    Actually, in most jurisdictions the bar is liable if they continue to serve to someone who is clearly intoxicated.

  35. mistadobolina says:

    so what its illegal to get drunk now? how does a bartender know if your driving or not? this is terrible…

  36. TH says:

    Very weak move, CD.

    I concur that he is rapidly squandering any remaining good will.

  37. Barry Coyle says:

    Wow…. the excuses keep coming. Look at his goal production with and without Pontius on the field. He should sue Pontius for breaking his leg. Without Chris spoon feeding him balls Davies is quickly becoming mediocre. How about some work rate, stop diving like an Argentinian, and get in shape. Sad…

  38. Barry Coyle says:

    … I said this EXACT phrase to myself when I saw this article. Great minds think alike.

  39. DanO says:

    God Bless America, where you can file a lawsuit for burning yourself with coffee. Caution: Contents Hot

    Maybe someone should sell bad decision insurance, so you can collect when you make a bad decision.

    This lawsuit makes my skin crawl.

    That being said, I still find Charlie’s physical recovery remarkable and inspiring.

  40. ko'd says:

    Fair point. But a lot of states have presumptions re: whether an individual would be visibly intoxicated to a licensed entity selling alcoholic beverages (for example, blood alcohol content). You only need a preponderance of the evidence to win.

    Side note for everyone that is really disturbed by the lawsuit: dram shop laws are designed to hold responsible entities that sell alcohol. The law is there as much as a preventative measure as a means of recovery for individuals that suffer damages as a result of the violation of the law. Also, the intoxicated individual may NOT recover under dram shop laws.

  41. owheezyo says:

    Sounds like someone called Saul Goodman

  42. Charles says:

    I got flamed to death a few years ago saying that he needed to take responsibility.

    I think I said on another topic that fans would turn on him very fast if he did anything wrong.

    Just saying….Told you so. ;-)

    Still enjoy watching him and I hope he keeps recovering.

  43. Mark says:

    i’m a florida lawyer (but not personal injury). clearly, CD’s counsel have been in touch with the bar’s counsel and tried to reach a pre-suit settlement and, in the process, learned that their policy limit is $20M. what CD and the bar could perceive about the driver’s intoxication are two different things. CD does not serve alcohol for a living, while the bartender does and would be better equipped to recognize if a customer is drunk.

    I have no problem with this lawsuit. and i think most of the posters would be too if CD hadn’t suddently developed a case of the floppies.

  44. Dan says:

    I guess it depends on how strict the dram shop law is and what constitutes prima facie evidence.

    I’m really against them as a matter of a principle unless it’s the person is so blatantly intoxicated they can’t stand up, or have clearly slurred speech, etc. From a common sense perspective, it’s a bar, people are going to get intoxicated, but it’s their duty to consume alcohol in a responsible manner.

    I just don’t think people should recover for something when it was their poor judgment that put them in the position to get hurt to begin with.

    At a minimum, he broke curfew (admittedly this is legally insignificant) to go to a night club, and then accepted a ride home from an intoxicated person (that he said was not visibly intoxicated), and is now suing Red Bull and the night club for serving someone visibly intoxicated.

  45. ko'd says:

    Voice of reason. And likely accurate, too.

    I think most posters have a problem with the idea that someone can actually recover under these circumstances. Based on what I have read, it sounds like Davies might have a strong case. Of course, that assumes that what any of us have read is the complete and accurate story…

  46. timmytwoshoezzz says:

    But was the bartender serving the drinks to the young woman? Or was a waiter or waitress involved?
    Was the club loud and dark like most nightclubs I’ve been in?
    Was the young lady in the bathroom a time or two, and not visable to the one taking the orders?
    And was the young lady even ordering the drinks, or were the men in the group ordering and paying, which usually happens when I’ve been out.

    Bottom line, this case is going to be next to impossible to prove, and so Davies is ruining what is left of his reputation with very slim odds of collecting on the risk. This decision is not that much smarter than the one he made to get in the car that night.

  47. RNG says:

    The real question is: what does the lawsuit say about Charlie Davies’ mindset right now? And the only answer I can come up with is that it says he is throwing in the towel. If he is focused on reliving or reinventing history, then he is certainly not focused on his future. That’s why this lawsuit is really bad news.

  48. ko'd says:

    Right. What bothers you, and what seems to bother most posters here, is that there is such thing as a dram shop claim. But again, the dram shop laws are primarily used to hold alcohol-serving premises responsible.

  49. C'Mon the U says:

    Yeah seriously, I have no problem with somebody trying to recover 20 million dollars for breaking curfew and accepting a ride home from a drunk driver when he could have easily called a cab.

    CD’s injuries were the result of his poor judgment. There’s something wrong with trying to recover that much money for poor decision-making.

  50. chris says:

    amen this type of sh!t pisses me off

  51. RedLine55 says:

    “Better Call Saul!”

  52. Dainja says:

    Charlie…it don’t matter brotha, i’m rollin with you to the end!!!!!!! A journey has many ups and downs.

  53. martha says:

    This is whats wrong what this country, no personal accountability.

    The nightclub didnt make him break curfew
    The nightclub didnt didnt refrain CD9 from stopping that drunk girl from driveing
    The nightclub didnt make him get into a car with a drunk driver

    CD9 ruined his own career. The personal most respondsible for it is him. Hes seems like the type of person always looking to blame someonelse.

    By his own reasoning, the family of the deceased should sue CD9 for not stopping the drunk girl from driving.

    Yes, know that DeRo takes the PK’s CD9’s career seems like it will be stuck at mediocre from now on (yes apoligist argue here that such an injury takes 1,2,3,4,5,6 etc years to recover).

    But this is all on CD9 and the drunk driver. But mostly on CD9 for the series decisons which led to the death of a great career and a birth to an average one.

  54. ko'd says:

    1) Any employee of a licensed premise is acting as the agent of the alcohol-serving entity. It doesn’t matter–bartender or server. It is the entity that is ultimately liable.

    2) The circumstances in the nightclub are just part of the evidence that would be introduced in determining whether the intoxicated individual was visibly intoxicated.

    3) Servers and bartenders are responsible for knowing who they are serving. The responsibility is on them, whether a person is in the bathroom or someone is buying the drinks.

    This isn’t next to impossible to prove. The standard is a preponderance of the evidence, which means a fact-finder (likely a jury) need only reach a 51% probability that the licensed entity is liable. This doesn’t seem like an impossible case to win.

    I bet they settle out of court.

  55. JJ says:

    “Floppies” have nothing to do with it. Most of us can see frivolous lawsuits pretty clearly and this is one of them. It is all about taking responsibility and that rarely happens with today’s lawyers in charge.

    Lawyers, do me a favor and punch yourselves in the face today. You guys, and insurance companies, are the downfall of our great country.

  56. JJ says:

    Learn the language before you rip our country …

  57. Kevin_Amold says:

    I’m waiting for Bob’s suit (and not one of the track variety) against Charlie for costing him a trip to the WC semis….

  58. ko'd says:

    This isn’t a frivolous lawsuit. It’s a peculiar law. And do you really think insurance companies are a big fan of this law?

    Don’t be angry at the lawyers that apply the law. Get angry at the legislators that make it.

  59. Dan says:

    This lawyer entirely agrees with you, JJ, except for punching myself in the face.

    Sometimes we need to take a step back and taking a common sense approach to things. This flies in the face of that.

    Now, had Charlie been a sober driver or driving with somebody sober and was hit by a drunk driver, I think the situation should change entirely. It’s just that people lack sympathy for those whose poor judgment creates their own problems when they attempt to blame somebody else.

  60. Northzax says:

    It’s nOt illegal to be drunk. It is illegal to be drunk in public, it is also a violation of liquor licensing regulations to serve someone who is drunk. This is why bars hire bouncers, after all. You are, in a lot of cases legally responsible for anything someone you got drunk does after they leave your place.

    What is odd about this article is that it describes the other defendant as ‘the owner of new York red bull’ isn’t that, well, Red Bull? Anyone reading this knows what Red Bull is, right? So why the protective language?

  61. Deuce4Prez says:

    To be fair DanO, the coffee was almost 190 degrees and caused 3rd degree burns on her torso, legs, and groin area. It’s not like the cup says Caution: Fatally Hot Coffee That We Know Isn’t Safe But Like the Smell It Creates in the Store.

  62. CY says:

    Oh god, people are always ignorantly repeating this without realizing that they are just quoting insurance company propaganda.

    Mickey D’s wasn’t sued for serving coffee, it was sued for selling unusually super hot coffee that caused 3rd degree burns in a matter of seconds and continuing to do so even years after they knew of hundreds of incidents like this.

    Their punishment was 2 days worth of coffee sales. Oh No!

  63. mgp says:

    Written like a true ambulance chaser. Keep giving an entire profession a bad name.

  64. JJ says:

    Good point. Lawyers and legislators should punch each other in the face. The entire system is screwed up and lawyers magnify the flaws and take home a mint for it.

  65. pd says:

    Okay Mr. and Mrs. Pious, I get you… because he made a mistake that absolves everyone else in the situation is free from any responsibility? I don’t think he’s saying he was an innocent in any of this, just looking for other responsible parties.

    Again, I’m not saying he needs to look at his own self, but that doesn’t mean he’s wrong in asking these questions.

  66. JJ says:

    Absolutely.

  67. pd says:

    I’m sorry I recall there being alcohol involved in that incident… can you post the article you’re referring to that documents that?

  68. pd says:

    again, show me where in the article he’s saying that he was blameless in any of this…

  69. Johnny says:

    If he wins the case then its DISGUSTING!

    I agree that he is a talent and you dont wish what happened on anyone but the girls chose to drink, the girls chose to drive and Davies chose to get in the car it is as simple as that……

    People have no accountability for their actions and are always looking for a scapegoat…a bad example to young people growing up!

  70. Dylan B T says:

    What a f ing joke. Can’t believe people were jumping up and down for this guy to be on the Gold Cup team, he showed absolutely nothing for DC, and now can barely make the bench. I hope he likes running soccer camps. No respect for this clown.

  71. timmytwoshoezzz says:

    The truth is the truth, in any language

  72. ko'd says:

    Would you feel differently if the family of the girl that died is successful with their lawsuit?

  73. b says:

    “(I forget which)”

    I am on a cell, if you want more info I suggest lmgtfy.com

  74. Michael F. SBI Mafia Original says:

    This lawsuit really gets me going like it did every one else here. Looks to me like everyone is in violent agreement – a rare feat on SBI. The two biggest points to be made, to me are: 1) Charlie CHOSE to get in the car and 2) Fans have now lost what little respect they had left for him. He’s really turned into such a hypocrite. All his religious talk, etc. Sorry Charlie, but you lost me as a fan. I’ll alway wish you well and hope for a full recovery. But more so I hope you learn why so many fans are all saying the same thing – we wanted you to accept responsibility – which we thought you did. But you have this way of continually alienating your fans after we give you another chance after each bad decision: The accident, speeding, and now the lawsuit. Three strikes and your out in my book. For me, this is the third strike. As someone above said: ‘Look in the mirror.’ Knowing you as we do you’ll probably say you did. OK, fair enough. But this time turn the lights on.

  75. PetedeLA says:

    I just lost a ton of respect for Davies.

    I agree with you, but more importantly for me this is like the people suing McDonalds for selling hot coffee.

    Let’s take responsibility for our actions.

    Of course, it’s tragic that this girl lost her life, but no one dragged them in the place. And I sincerely doubt they force-poured alcohol into her.

    How about he just donate half his pay check to MADD and set up his own foundation if he feels so strongly about it.

  76. Northzax says:

    The law (you know, the system of rules by which we live?) does not put liability on a passenger in a car. It does put liability on a place that serves alcohol. Fact: if you get someone drunk, you are legally liable for what they do. The parents of the woman killed have also filed a lawsuit (which probably explains this one as well.

  77. b says:

    Sochaux doesn’t want him, DC United doesn’t seem to want him either based on his post-DeRo playing time… What’s next for Davies?

    Some bottom tier MLS team like the Revs taking a chance on him? NASL?

  78. Anna says:

    Everyone keeps pointing out the it’s the bars fault if they continue to serve someone that’s “clearly intoxicated”, point made. But if she really did appear to be that intoxicated, enough so to find a bar liable, and kept drinking and Davies STILL choose to let her drive…I sure as hell hope he hands the millions to the victims family cause in no way does he deserve a dime in any of this. Man up, Charlie, no lawsuit will ever clear your character.

  79. Like I told my sons — if you can make it from 15 to 25 without making a mistake that will effect the rest of your life, then you did well. Choose wisely. (and yes, they did -thank you God!)

    Sorry, Charlie.

  80. TonyT says:

    It is a sad and unfortunate tragic accident, I wish the families involved to be able to find peace…..
    As for Mr.Davies….Common sense, alcohol causes impaired judgement, don’t go out and get drunk and then turn around and blame the establishment for letting you get drunk.
    Seriously, if your an adult take responsibility for your own actions, if your still not capable then you shouldn’t leave the house without your parents… Let them babysit you while your out! …. I’m sure he is still looking for answers as to why this happen,and at this point he is looking for someone to blame… but all the money in the world is not going to buy you back a spot on the World Cup… put it behind you and move on… I mean isn’t it a miracle that you are still able to play “Professional Soccer” isn’t that enough???

  81. TonyT says:

    Sounds like she was just stating her opinion…who said anything about learning the language/rules….just my opinion ;)

  82. AllNats says:

    I tend bar in MD just outside of DC. We all know about these laws, and that we can be responsible for serving visibly drunk patrons, but…

    I support this law in a situation where the bartender serves a visibly dunk person; then that person gets in an accident with another car; and someone in that car gets seriously injured. The bar is partially liable (along with the driver) for that person’s injury, and that’s fine with me.

    When the person injured is a passenger in the car that caused the accident, I feel that person should lose their right to sue, as they made the decision to get in the car with a drunk driver.

    Also, I’d be curious to hear what the details of the evening were. If the girl was sitting at a table at the club then going to the bar for drinks, unless she’s so drunk she’s falling over or slurring speech, the bartender has no way of knowing. I’ve bought plenty of drinks at clubs while quite drunk (not driving), but able to act sober enough for the ten seconds I had to order from the bartender.

    Regardless of whether legally CD has a right to sue, he needs to man up and take some responsibility for himself, and stop trying to pass off the blame. Lost a lot of respect for the guy when I read this.

  83. mikey says:

    What if she wasn’t fetching her own drinks? I don’t know how they do it in DC but over here dudes are always buying drinks for the chicks.

    Also the female could have appeared fine when she ordered her last drink. Usually people “appear” wasted *after* ordering drinks

  84. mikey says:

    “He should sue Pontius for breaking his leg” LOLOLOL

  85. WeatherManNX01 says:

    How about where he’s suing them because he willingly got in a car with an intoxicated driver? The part where he broke team curfew and was out and about?

    Maybe they did continue to serve alcohol to someone who’s supposedly visibly intoxicated (which is what he says, doesn’t mean other people saw it). And they should be held accountable for it.

    But if she were visibly intoxicated, then why did he get in the car? Why did he not take the keys? He could have called a cab, called a friend. Hell, he could have called team staff. Yeah, sure, maybe Bob Bradley’s pissed and doesn’t dress him for a game or two, but better that than in the hospital with a myriad of injuries.

  86. mattoomba says:

    HA! I am going to steal this line and use it often.

  87. Mark says:

    learn to read, mgp. my very first sentence stated that i don’t do personal injury (aka ambulance chasing).

    and JJ, everybody hates attorneys until they need one. there’s more to practicing law than what you learned on Boston Legal. your comments just make you sound like an uneducated toolbox. and i’m not fond of insurance companies either; they pay lousy hourly rates.

    I’m not excusing CD’s choices. heck, i’ve never been drunk in my life, and haven’t had a drink since my wedding day 16 years ago. i think drinking alcohol is stupid and often leads to poor choices. but the last time i checked drinking is legal in this country, driving drunk isn’t. so it’s within this framework that the case will be decided.

  88. couchtoast@hotmail.com says:

    If put in the same situation, every last one of you would be taking advantage of this law.

  89. TonyT says:

    Not if you don’t want to sellout millions of your fans…clearly money is more important to you and lets not forget Charlie…. but I can see where your coming from, if one does not have money then you might assume that, yes why not take advantage of this law and become rich quick on the businesses and lost lives of others.

  90. Danny says:

    Oh yes this is what is soooo wrong with this country!! These youngsters these days have no respect and have ‘no accountability’!! Back in my day we would never do this! We had respect for one another! I blame these dog-gone kids and their iPhones!! Theyre glued to them and they don’t listen to the radio or read the newspaper! This is what is wring with this country and why it’s going down the tubes.

    I truly hate the people who comment on this site. Hypocrites, pseudo-intellectuals, contrarians, and flat out ignorant a-holes.

  91. ko'd says:

    How would he become rich on the lost lives of others? Enlighten us.

  92. BellusLudas says:

    Sad day for me as I have been in support of CD9 until now…feel the same as you.

  93. JJ says:

    Don’t make stupid decisions and you won’t need an attorney. I don’t need your edumacation to know that.

    Also, Boston Legal sucked. I learn everything from Law & Order.

  94. Paul Dickov says:

    He’s wrong for asking these questions for 20 Million. If he didn’t make the initial move of violating curfew he wouldn’t have been involved in any of the unfortunate circumstances that happened that night.

  95. Paul Dickov says:

    Remember when we all liked CD9? Yeah.. that was cool.

  96. DC Josh says:

    The Shadowroom is an upscale bar ALA a Las Vegas bar where it’s bottle service, memberships, table reservations, etc. It is possible that she drank without ever coming into direct contact with a bartender, although the waiter/waitress would have seen her at some point.

    Also, Charlie claims he didn’t run into her at the bar until he was leaving. He only got in the car a few minutes after meeting her.

  97. JJ says:

    Do you have a thought on the topic?

  98. DC Josh says:

    I understand Charlie’s life has changed DRAMATICALLY after the accident, but this is a very puzzling decision. By all accounts he seems like a God-fearing man, but he needs to consider the family of the woman who lost her life in the accident before pursuing this lawsuit. I have a feeling he may donate the money from the lawsuit winning. If not, then shame.

  99. Ryan says:

    As many have said, it is illegal to serve drunk persons in many states. I don’t know the details if she was visibly drunk or not, but I have had many friends that have gotten drunk driving arrests that were barely over the legal limit. They acted and functioned normally, but decided to drive before their BAC had fallen below legal limits. So it is possible she could have been legally drunk but not drunk enough to be cut off by the bar. That is the hard part for bars. Unless they give a breathalyzer to every patron for every drink, there will be some legally drunk patrons that don’t appear overly intoxicated. Thus unless they can prove that the bartender didn’t get the impression they were too drunk to be served (which is obviously hard to prove in a court of law), they kinda get screwed over.

    Now if the person is obviously drunk and still gets served, that’s another issue.

  100. Mouf says:

    You should actually look at the McD’s hot coffee lawsuit, there was merit, burn drs stated the burns were the worst seen from any liquid burn, it was insanely hot.

  101. AdamFromMich says:

    I don’t have a (huge) problem with this type of case. However, I do hope that Charlie is planning on donating his potential “winnings” from this case to a worthy charity. I think that would be far better for him from both a PR and personal mindset angle.

    I agree with what RNG wrote below: this lawsuit makes it seem like he’s giving up on his career. Accepting any money from this case would just reinforce that.

  102. mgp says:

    You are right. I missed that sentence, and apparently don’t read very well. Sorry about that Mark.

    Pels is the only Ambulance Chaser in sight.

  103. Hush says:

    Clown… Last time I checked anyone in this country can state their opinion. Learn the language? WTF? Spanish is the second most spoken language in the states and first most spoken language in the “new world”…. You really going to whin over what language someone should speak into perfection in a public forum?lol … This is a soccer forum, pretty sure more than half of the folks here have Latin roots…. You are going to end up punching your own face on this site because a lot of folks have English as their second language. Calm down with that noise.

    I’m sick and tired of clowns constantly whinning over this.

  104. bryan says:

    the dude did not have a license. they were sober though.

  105. inkedAG says:

    +1. I was all for Charlie and his recovery, but this lawsuit is sad.

  106. Mark says:

    nailed it on the head.

  107. vic says:

    I don’t think the bar owner has 20 million and his insurance liability that covers that much. Maybe they’ll settle for 1 million. Have to love our legal system. Imagine being a bartender in a busy bar. Serving 100 drinks an hour and making sure people don’t get too drunk while working in an establishment people go to to get drunk.

  108. Hush says:

    Poor judgement on his part and I believe he has taken responsibility for it.

    There are a few articles that state he didn’t know her all that well, she was actually his friends girlfriend. With that said, I think it has a lot to do with him taking legal action.

    I’m assuming he just got in the car without knowing she was completely blasted, he was also very tipsy, so it’s not like he was fully functional to have stoped her from driving. Incidents like this happen so fast it clearly takes your mind out from making a wise decision. I believe his beef is that someone in the establishment knew she was hammered but continued to serve her drinks,… he then comes out of the bar and his boy let’s him know it’s time to go, so he then proceeds to get in the car without knowing his friends girlfriend is completely hammered… Keep in mind he was a bit blasted himself, so it’s not like he could make a good judgement whether she was ok to drive or not… I believe he assumed his friend was taking care of things.

    Chuck D should sue his friend for letting his drunk girlfriend get behind the wheel if you ask me. I do agree he should just move on. Take responsibility and let it go.

    I’ll continue to support Chuck D as long as he gets back to his scoring ways.

  109. shutupayouface says:

    watch the documentary Hot Coffee. you’ll never use that reference again in the case of frivolous lawsuits.

  110. shutupayouface says:

    @PetedeLA, look up the court case before referencing it. your reference is way off based — see other comments above.

  111. TonyT says:

    do’k …No need for enlightenment, I’m sure you know what I mean… sorry spelled your name backwards.

  112. PetedeLA says:

    So I’ve looked at the other comments above.

    I agree that this person had a right to sue McDonalds. And I feel bad for this person’s burns.

    My mistake. But the point everyone tried to make with this still stands.

    There is still a problem in this country of blaming someone else for something which is someone’s own responsibility.

    Person who sued McDonald’s = good

    Charlie Davies trying to sue a bar for serving drinks = bad.

    For the record, thanks for the info.

    Please lose the handle. I used to love that song.

  113. JJ says:

    All I am saying is that poor spelling and grammar diminish good points. I agree with all of her thoughts, she just typed them so poorly.

    Are you trying to bait me with your use of “whin/whinning”?

  114. northzax says:

    her family has filed a similar suit, against the same people, for the same events. It seems likely they are at the least in contact, if not working together. Does that help? He may very well be doing this to add pressure to the Shadow Room and Red Bull to settle with them both, Charlie has more leverage, more resources, and a higher profile.

    Seriously, if you were the Shadow Room or Red Bull, would you care about a suit from a random woman killed in a car wreck? her family filed suit as well, notice SBI didn’t write a piece about that.

  115. northzax says:

    I bet he has at least five million in liability insurance. at least. If not, he’s a fool.

    and you know who does have 20 million? Red Bull.

  116. Dave says:

    Davies wasnt driving the car in France. Look it up.

  117. metrostar 4 life says:

    Love Davies but what a moron. 0 shot of winning this case and I hope he loses…take responsibility for your actions jerk. He was aware of what he was doing that night-do not blame others.

  118. DanO says:

    While I appreciate the detailed update on the state of the McD’s lawsuit, and agree it may not be the best example, the general point of my post still stands, there are far too many frivolous lawsuits in this country.

    Man, nothing slips by anyone on this site…

  119. Vic says:

    I think the Red Bull portion of the lawsuit will be thrown out. If Red Bull used the bar as a subcontractor I don’t think they have liability.

  120. dL says:

    Well, Dan, your comment represented a complete misunderstanding of fact and was merely a recitation of a piece of right-wing propaganda that has been used for years to manipulate the public… so you got (rightfully) called out on it.

    As for what constitutes a frivolous lawsuit: a lawsuit that is not grounded in law or has no merit. We have no way to judge whether Davies’ suit is meritorious or not. If, in fact, it is not meritorious, either the suit will be dismissed or terminated pre-trial or Davies will not prevail at trial. It is the extraordinarily rare occasion that someone wins a “frivolous” lawsuit.

  121. dL says:

    And another point: we should count ourselves lucky that in this country we have an open and robust system where people can hold wrongdoers accountable. That, Dan, is the definition of a civilized nation.

    Political rant over.

  122. Mason says:

    Depends on DC law.

    Remember… This is a city that, until yesterday was arresting people for expired tags.

  123. Mason says:

    The dead girl’s family has filed their own lawsuit. Notice that you didn’t hear anything about that, did you?

  124. northzax says:

    not if there were Red Bull personnel on site. and of course, it depends on whether the plaintiffs can prove a consistent pattern of negligence among events sponsored by Red Bull.

  125. DanO says:

    I had no idea I had been so manipulated by the right wing…

    The great thing about this country is that you and I have the ability to discuss things openly, despite a difference of opinion. That said, may I suggest dropping the patronizing line about the civilized nation?

    I think what you are underestimating is the affect that a frivolous lawsuit has on the parties involved. One, being named in such a suit is a traumatic experience, not to mention potentially damaging to one’s professional reputation. Two, there is a tangible financial cost to defend yourself, even if the case is thrown out, with little to no accountability on the plaintiff or his/her representation. So yeah, maybe it is rare for such a suit to win, but even when the suit fails, there are losses on both sides.

  126. scott says:

    agreed. I have lost respect for charlie davies…

  127. away goals says:

    Get over the curfew thing. None of the moral/legal consequences of the auto accident go back to breaking curfew.

    You might as well cite his decision circa 1992 to start playing soccer. That’s what really led to this whole mess in the first place.

  128. Neruda says:

    Good one. Because of Davies loss of potential earnings and place on WC team he’s going to dive in head first on this.

  129. pd says:

    they also seem to think breaking curfew is punishable by near-death.

  130. pd says:

    could we sell tickets to that event?

  131. pd says:

    your a$$-hol-ish-ness is breathtaking…

  132. pd says:

    Really? I thought you’d be all, “she should take some responsibility for herself as a US citizen and learn English while I wrap myself in my superiority blah blah blah”

  133. pd says:

    I think he shared it….

  134. pd says:

    I just don’t get it.

    1. We only know what the articles says, which is to say we don’t know all the facts.

    2. Davies has agents family friends and yes lawyers that i’m sure he has consulted about this with, he must have discussed the potential fallout and decided it was worth pursuing. We do not know the details of those conversations

    3. He’ll either win or he won’t or there will be a settlement.

    None of it can’t change the past.

    When will we know about the merit of this lawsuit? once it’s public record and we can see what evidence and testimony is presented.

    Until then, whatever happened to giving a guy the benefit of the doubt and reserving judgement until we actually know anything?

    put another way, HOW LONG ARE PEOPLE GOING TO CONTINUE TO PUNISH HIM FOR SOMETHING HE’S ALREADY PAYING FOR?

  135. abc says:

    I know that, but he pretended he was driving to protect the teammate who really was driving, aka lied to the police.

  136. Edwin in LA says:

    I don’t agree with the whole “the lady who got burned by McD’s coffee had a merit”

    Who in their right mind thinks coffee is not hot? I mean someone said doctors said that was the worst burn from a liquid they had seen, that had to had been challenged in court, I can think of a lot of liquids that had caused more damage and I’m sure there are HUNDREDS of incidents in which boiling water of some sort has caused WAY worst damage.

    I guess Starbucks and every coffee house in America could be exposed to law suits since they serve drinks at about 150-160 degrees all the time, and as someone who worked at a Starbucks I can tell you people ask for 180, some even 190 degree lattes all the time and the milk batch is still used for other drinks.

    I don’t recall how hot exactly is the water for tea but I think it was around 170?

    People should have better common sense, is like the robber who sued the person he was robbing for something that happened to him from robbing the poor guy in the 1st place? I don’t recall if it was an injury due to condition of the house or what but it was unbelievable..

  137. Paul Dickov says:

    Ugh… really? So, breaking team rules, going out and drinking, choosing to get in a vehicle with someone who has been drinking has no relation to the accident? You mean the fact that he should have been back at the hotel resting means little to this situation? Good logic!

  138. ce says:

    ? This commment I think exemplifies how little people understand about civil suits in this country. The point of the lawsuit is she was visibly intoxicated and still being served alcohol. Lets pretend it wasn’t Davies breaking curfew, which has nothing to do with the bartender, the bartender is liable in DC and many other places around the US. You can make the argument “I wish more people got into car accidents so they would be accountable for their actions” but personally I disagree. On top of the fact that there is probably a lot of information we are not aware of.

  139. ce says:

    you can still like him, I do. If people are really liking or disliking athletes based on morality than thats crazy. Van Persie is my favorite player (non USA) and he raped a prostitute.

  140. ce says:

    +1 Its a joke how everyone on this site imminently jumped on Davies with no more than a brief statement on a blog.

  141. ce says:

    Ya following the law is only important for some people. Certainly not the pius bartender

  142. ce says:

    0 chance huh? your an idiot

  143. ce says:

    +1 thank you.

  144. yeah says:

    You’re dumb. Stop talking.

  145. yeah says:

    I never thought that much of him. But, I missed all of the 09 Confed Cup because of work.

  146. yeah says:

    What the hell does being “a God-fearing man” have to do with anything?

  147. away goals says:

    If you start your case with “choosing to get in a vehicle with someone who has been drinking,” then yes, that has a relation to the accident. And one that davies is accountable for.

    But the curfew thing is irrelevant. Breaking team rules does not lead to auto accidents. It (possibly) leads to team chemistry issues. That’s the only significant consequence of breaking that particular team rule.

  148. moosecat says:

    wow. Charlie just lost a fan here. take some personal responsibility.

  149. Mason says:

    Time to burn is logarithmic to heat.

    I don’t expect you know what that means.