A Difficult Task: Determining Liability in Tragedy
When a Pennsylvania teenager was killed in a car accident after driving drunk on his way home from work, his parents sued his employer for wrongful death.

April 26, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- A Difficult Task: Determining Liability in Tragedy

It was an undeniable tragedy that a Pennsylvania teenager was killed when driving home from work late one night in 2006. The family of Sean Nemcheck recently filed a wrongful death lawsuit, charging that his employer allowed the 17-year-old to drink alcohol on the job.

After his body was recovered, Nemcheck's blood alcohol concentration (BAC) tested at .14 percent, close to twice the legal limit of .08 percent for drivers 21 and over in Pennsylvania. Pennsylvania drivers under the legal drinking age are considered legally drunk if their BAC is above .02 percent.

The family is suing Hospitality Group Services, Inc., owner of the Ramada Inn of Ligonier, claiming the company is at fault for the teen's death because he was allowed to work a 16-hour shift as a dishwasher and waiter and had access to alcohol. Both are violations of Pennsylvania child labor laws.

In 2007, owners of the Ramada Inn pleaded guilty to 21 violations of labor laws, including letting minors work past 1 a.m., permitting minors to work shifts longer than eight hours and allowing minors to work where alcohol is sold.

Looming Legal Questions

In the ongoing wrongful death lawsuit against the owners of the Ramada Inn, Westmoreland County Judge Richard McCormick recently ruled that some formerly litigated issues will be considered as previously established as the case moves forward. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, this includes the fact that Nemcheck was allowed to drink alcohol on the job.

The facts of the case state that Nemcheck had access to alcohol during periods when the bar was closed. Even so, some observers of the case speculate if Pennsylvania's Dram Shop Act could play a role in the outcome of similar lawsuits. Under this act, it is unlawful for an establishment with a liquor license to serve alcohol to "any person visibly intoxicated."

Sometimes it can be difficult to prove that serving alcohol was a factual cause of an accident. It is often the case that the intoxicated driver drank alcohol at more than one location. Sometimes it is difficult to determine how much and when a person drank at a particular place. In the Nemcheck case, however, the person in question was a heavily intoxicated minor who should not have had unsupervised and unrestricted access to alcohol whatsoever.

Another intriguing legal question revolves around how workers' compensation laws would impact this case. Under Pennsylvania law, most employees cannot sue an employer for workplace injuries, nor can survivors typically sue the employer if a family member is killed on the job.

Pennsylvania law states that the workers' compensation system is the exclusive remedy for almost all employees injured or killed on the job. In the Nemcheck instance, the teenage employee was driving home from work, rather than carrying out work-related duties at the moment of the accident. However, the employee became intoxicated at work. We need to watch how the courts resolve these issues.

Finally, many establishments that serve alcohol (and therefore have liquor licenses) do not have insurance coverage for injuries arising out of selling or serving alcohol. This coverage is often referred to as Dram Shop Coverage. A general civil liability policy will typically exclude Dram Shop Coverage. Such coverage is available separately. However, it is relatively expensive.

Press Release Contact Information:

Kent Mikus
Mikus Law Associates
Personal Injury Lawyers
1623 Lampeter Road
Lancaster, Pennsylvania
United States 17602
Voice: 717-715-0878
Website: Visit Our Website