Mom sues Coors over son's death in accident

[Turfgrass]

A mother who lost her son in a drunk driving accident is suing the Coors Brewing Co, claiming that the beer made him do it. A sad story, but a frivolous lawsuit.


RENO, Nevada (AP) -- The mother of a 19-year-old killed in a traffic accident is suing Coors Brewing Co., claiming that it promotes underage drinking.

Jodie Pisco, of Reno, contends Coors has failed in its duty to protect the country's youth from drinking. Her son, Ryan, was killed in 2002 after he drank Coors at a party and drove his girlfriend's car into a light pole at 90 mph, the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Washoe County District Court, seeks unspecified damages. It accused Coors of "glorifying a culture of youth, sex and glamour while hiding the dangers of alcohol abuse and addiction."

Laura Sankey, a spokeswoman for Golden, Colorado-based Coors, said that although she could not comment on pending litigation, the company "doesn't want underage consumers -- period."

"Tragedies like this further reinforce why the fight against underage drinking and drunk driving must continue," Sankey told the Reno Gazette-Journal.

Also named in the suit were Ryan Pisco's girlfriend and her mother. The lawsuit alleges the girlfriend allowed Pisco, who lacked a valid driver's license, to drive off in her car, which had been given to her by her mother.

 

[yyz]

She should just sue everyone. What about the people who had the party? What about the person who actually served him the beer?

We won't hold the dead kid responsible for his own under-aged drinking, though. He is just another nameless victim of advertising.

That being said, these tobacco and alcohol companies just kill me with their, "We don't want the youth using our product", line of bullshit! They go out of their fuking way to get kids to do their product, and the whole world sees it.

 

[DJTranks]

**** that, I hate people like this, your son drank, he knows the ****ing consequences, and then he goes to drive, **** em, and **** her, sorry bitch but thats what you get..Shit he could of been on the road and killed others, JESUS!

 

[Turfgrass]

I think I can sum up to basically what everybody wants or thinks no one should have anymore = Personal responsibility.

It has to be someone else?s fault because it couldn?t possibility be my own.

 

[Marco]

I gotta agree with Turf on this one......we live in a society where noone takes responsibility for thier own actions anymore....

If someone shoots someone, blame the gun.
If someone drives drunk, blame alcohol.
If someone gets stabbed, well, it's just gotta be the knife's fault.
Beat someone with a golf club, better outlaw golfing.

Why doesn't she just sue Detroit for making the vehicle that the drunk drove? Obviously they know that someone is going to drive that specific vehicle in the commission of a crime....

We also live in a society where nobodys children are ever at fault:

.....parents say "I didn't raise them like that"....or "My child would never do that"......or something of that nature....it's someone ELSE'S children who do this......

....not to blame it all on the parents, but I guess guys like Bundy, Dahmer, Gacy, and the other monsters that prey on society never had parents because thier parents cetainly didn't teach them to kill?

Also, where can it be misconstrued that Coors actually promotes underaged drinking? Are thier advertisements depicting grade schoolers sitting around the classroom soaking down the suds?

Last beer commercials I saw were more like the brawny towel guy whooping it up with his buddies playing a game of pool.

Where do people come up with the unbased claim of beer advertising promoting minors to drink?

If anything they promote it as cool, but you still have to wait for legal drinking age to participate. Is Coors selling to minors?

I'd like to be on the jury for this one if it goes to court, she wouldn't get squat from me, period.

 

[Yelajakitz]

I don't see what his age has to do with his choice to drink and drive. Whether Coors glorifies underage drinking or not is irrelevant to the fact that her son drove drunk.

At least she hasn't teamed up with the zealous bitches in MADD yet.

 

[yyz]

His age has to do with the fact that he is "underaged".

 

[dr. freeze]

That being said, these tobacco and alcohol companies just kill me with their, "We don't want the youth using our product", line of bullshit! They go out of their fuking way to get kids to do their product, and the whole world sees it.

i agree...we should ban their right to free speech

i think the next step lawyers need to look into is charred meat..it is a carcinogen......

so all makers of grills shoudl be sued, any restaurant that grills food should be sued......we should sue our parents, anyone who invited us to a tailgate or party

laugh at that you will.....there are lawsuits pending concerning french fries and their possible carcinogenic potential which is based on much less science than is the conclusion that charred meat is a carcinogen

bottom line: lawyers have sabotaged our courts and made a mockery out of the legal system....and they refuse to do anything about it because they are making $$$ off of businesses which is reflected back toward us in consumer prices

 

[yyz]

i agree...we should ban their right to free speech

No....we should ban yours.


WTF does my saying they openly pander their product to minors, and then hire people to deny it, have to do with free speech?


At least, once again, you didn't let the facts get in the way of your response to something here........


Is Coors responsible for this kids death? I should think not. Does Coors et al, incourage underage drinking? Absolutely.


"(Coors) doesn't want underage consumers -- period."

"Read my lips......No new taxes."

"I did not have sex with that woman."


Spare me.

 

[Eddie Haskell]

I have two words to say to you Quacker:

Joe Camel.

Ed

 

[Penguinfan]

I have two words to say to you Quacker:

Joe Camel.

Ed

Damn it Eddie, you beat me to that one.

Penguinfan

 

[Eddie Haskell]

Pengy:

I'm still reeling from the Byner shot.

Ed

 

[ozball]

Surely a smoking cartoon character is only intended to make adult smokers switch brands...

Although he's had a few side effects of his products

ozball

 

[ozball]

Marketing to children....nah...just free speech

"During the first three years of Joe Camel advertisements, Camel's share of the under-18 cigarette market jumped from 0.5% to 32.8%, representing a $470 million increase in annual sales for RJR Nabisco"

"More than 90% of six-year-olds match Joe Camel with a picture of a cigarette, making him as well-known as Mickey Mouse (by comparison, only 67% of adults recognize Joe Camel). "

ozball

 

[Eddie Haskell]

We're waiting Doctor..................

Ed

 

[dr. freeze]

yeah so why do we stop at Joe Camel?

why dont we go after all the charred meat in this country? the incidence of colon cancer is on the rise....why don't you sue all the grill makers and any restaurant who advertises an appealing meal which will lead to quicker death?

 

[yyz]

Great retort.

Why don't we go after dentists pushing flouride?

 

[dr. freeze]

GSTM1 and GSTT1 polymorphisms and postmenopausal breast cancer risk.

Zheng W, Wen WQ, Gustafson DR, Gross M, Cerhan JR, Folsom AR.

Department of Medicine and Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA. wei.zheng@mcmail.vanderbilt.edu

Glutathione S-transferases (GSTs) are a family of important enzymes involved in the detoxification of a wide variety of known and suspected carcinogens, including potential mammary carcinogens identified in charred meats and tobacco smoke. A substantial proportion of the Caucasian population has a homozygous deletion (null) of the GSTMI or GSTT1 gene, which results in lack of production of these isoenzymes. We conducted a case-control study in a cohort of postmenopausal Iowa women who in 1986 completed a mailed questionnaire on lifestyle factors including information on cigarette smoking and breast cancer risk factors. DNA samples and information related to charred meat intake were obtained, in the case-control study, from breast cancer cases diagnosed during 1992-1994, and a random sample of cancer-free cohort members. Included in this study were 202 cases and 481 controls who were genotyped for GSTM1 or GSTT1 gene polymorphisms. Compared to women who had both GSTM1 and GSTT1 genes, a 60% elevated risk (95% CI = 1.0-2.5) was observed among those whose GSTM1 or GSTT1 gene was deleted. When stratified by meat eating habits, the risk of breast cancer associated with null GSTM1 or GSTT1 genotype was observed primarily among women who ate meats consistently well- or very well-done. Women who carried either one of the null genotypes and consumed meat consistently well- or very well-done had a 3.4-fold elevated risk of developing breast cancer (95% CI = 1.6-7.1). Cigarette smoking was not a risk factor for breast cancer among women who had either the GSTM1 or GSTT1 genes. Among those with the null GSTT1 genotype, however, a significantly elevated risk of breast cancer was associated with cigarette smoking (OR = 2.5, 95% CI = 1.1-5.4) and the association was stronger among former (OR = 4.4, 95% CI = 1.5-12.8) than current smokers (OR = 1.3, 95% CI = 0.4-4.1). This study suggests that certain null GST genotypes may be associated with an elevated risk of breast cancer and the association may be modified by charred meat intake and cigarette smoking.

AGAIN...
Women who carried either one of the null genotypes and consumed meat consistently well- or very well-done had a 3.4-fold elevated risk of developing breast cancer (95% CI = 1.6-7.1). Cigarette smoking was not a risk factor for breast cancer among women who had either the GSTM1 or GSTT1 genes.

 

[dr. freeze]

it IS a great retort to these nonsensical views......charred meat in some instances can be more harmful than tobacco smoke

and it is marketed towards everyone.....

you see, sometimes the best way to demonstrate absurdity, is with absurdity

 

[dr. freeze]

by no means is smoking safe....i better qualify that remark before Eddie Haskell puts me on the stand for millions of dollars for perhaps likening something which lawyers have not litigated as of yet

but handing $$ out to lawyers to enforce such a thing which raises the price on the poverty stricken people where the habit predominates (and has been shown to be of little deterrant) is also absurd....

and since when is the government in charge of making consumer choices for us? the same people that have their panties in a wad about the government cracking down on pornography are proponents of government cracking down on advertising for cigarettes? this seems a bit hypocritical

let businesses be free to do as the please and let the individual stand competent enough to educated himself to make good choices........i guess self-reliance is out and government reliance is in but geez when you lower expectations time and again you just keep on lowering them until you get brain power not much higher than the monkey