Woman Sues Chuck E. Cheese in son's death

I can see that the liquor store had dram shop liability. However, I fail to see how CEC had any duty or that Gorney was a business invitee of CEC, simply because he sat in the parking lot and got drunk. I also don't see how CEC has a duty to check everyone who picks up the children from a pizza party. I also don't see why the estate of Gorney wasn't sued, as he was the primary tortfeasor (unless the estate is judgment proof, but he probably had automobile insurance, and the suit would be brought at least to discover whether he had).

I agree that Chuck E Cheese should not be held liable. Chuck E Cheese is a restaurant not a baby sitter. Those employees cannot possibly stop some biys from leaving with the relative who dropped them off. Also I think the drunk man was an uncle or something of the boy that passed away. And who leaves 8 year olds unattended anyhow??

This is a very sad story, but why would Chuck E Cheese be liable? For that matter, why the liquor store? This woman is looking for money, nothing more, because the restaurant and the liquor store are not responsible for the man's actions.

Who was responsible for leaving this child in the care of this man? Oh, wait, the plaintiff, right?

While I feel very badly for this mother, it is only her own fault that she let her child go with this man, and failed to instruct him on the proper usage of seatbelts while in a car. The restaurant is not a babysitter, it did not serve the man alcohol, and isn't responsible. A liquor store that sell a bottle of alcohol to a non-intoxicated person surely isn't responsible for what the man does afterward. If this mother wants to find who is most responsible for what happened to her child she needs look no further than the nearest mirror. Yes, she can sue the man that got drunk, failed to responsibly monitor her child, and caused the accident, but perhaps he didn't have very good insurance either.

CEC is a secure facility, and they are being sued because they check to make sure the kids are with the right person(s) before they are allowed to leave, and the man the child was released to was intoxicated. They failed to notice this. It could be argued that it is not the responsibility of CEC to check the sobriety of their patrons, but this man was very drunk.

On the other hand, the mother put her trust in a person she might not have really known, and she allowed the child to ride with this individual to a friend's party. The dead man that chose to drink and drive is for the most part responsible for this tragedy - not the mother and not CEC. Maybe the man didn't appear fallen-down drunk, and maybe he didn't speak and make his alcohol breath apparant when his ID was checked along with the children's IDs upon leaving.

The plaintiff's son was invited to a child's party, and she thought he would be cared for properly. Kids attend parties with friends every day, and most come home safely, but this is just one of the many reasons why I'd never allow my child to be transported with a friend's parent or caregiver that I really didn't know.

In any case, no amount of money will bring back this child, but maybe CEC will be more aware when releasing kids to their caregivers because of this tragedy - even if the woman doesn't win this case. The man had to reek of alcohol, and someone wasn't paying attention. The question is - was it their duty to pay attention? Instructing a drunk on the proper use of seatbelts certainly wouldn't have worked.

I'm sure if the mother knew this man was going to drink, she wouldn't have let her child go. There are no winners here. No amount of money will bring back the life of this innocent child, but making people aware could save another.

Are you kidding? Neither the liquor store nor Chuck-E-Cheese can be held liable. To thinks so would only conclude the EVERY liquor store and EVERY food establishment that caters to children must be responsible for the actions ever EVERY person that enters their esetablishments. It's not only unreasonble, it's ridiculous.

While my heart goes out to the mother who lost a child (I bear witness to the agony of her grief), attempting to gain some vague sense of justice from either establishment is nonsensical. The ONLY person responsible for her child's death is Mr. Gorney - unless there was some person who KNEW Mr. Gorney was too drunk to drive and allowed him to get behind the wheel with two children; then perhaps she has some cause of action for negligence if she can prove any such individual had a duty to stop him from doing so.

Are we to expect every liquor store clerk to follow every customer out the door to make certain he/she is not going to get drunk in a parking lot and then drive off? The Dram Shop Act does not apply here - Mr. Gorney was not being served alcohol at a drinking establshment.

Also, has anyone been inside a Chuck-E-Cheese? The place is a zoo during peak hours. And, I would assume that Chuck-E-Cheese does not offer 'babysitting' services for all the children that enter their establishment. Watching the children is the sole responsibility of the adults that accompany the children there. Shame on any parent that simply drops off children and drives off for any reason - let alone to get drunk in the parking lot. With all the crimes against children being perpretrated, to do that was negligent in and of itself.

All that said, was this man a known alcoholic? The circumstances here suggest he very well could have been. Was this boy's mother aware of any such drinking problem? What about Mrs. Gorney?

The issue here is about personal responsibility / accountability - or lack thereof. Attempting to make virtually every other remote individual (with insurance) that happened accross Mr. Gorney's path before the accident misses the point.

And, to be successful on an action in negligence requires proving the alleged negligent party had a duty, first, to the injured person and, second, that the duty was breached, and, third, that the breach of the duty was the proxmiate cause of the injury. (There is also a 4th element of damages, but that can obvioulsy not be contested). Thus, where it inlikely Ms. Evers will be successful on her suit, the intended goal appears to be a quick and quiet settlement with the respective insurance companies. However, most insurance companies now will take these cases to trial.... which will be a long, drawn out, and very painful experience for Ms. Evers.... that will unlikely yield her any financial benefit at the end of the day. She'd be far better off hanging on to a judgment/execution against Mr. Gorney personally and spend the next 20 years collecting it (akin to the Goldman's pursuing O.J. Simpson).

Like it says... just my two cents.

The only way chuck e cheese would be responsible, would be if they served alcohol. This sue happy, irresponsible mother can only sue the driver and his insurance company. I wonder why liquor stores don't be respnsible for these crashes. I have been in liquor stores and have seen intoxicated customers, even at big chain stores. It is unfortunate she lost her child, but she shares responsibility. What if he had just taken them to the park district. Would she sue the city because he sat on a park bench and got drunk.

The law, as poorly written as it, says "Every person who is injured within this State, in person or property, by any intoxicated person has a right of action in his or her own name, severally or jointly, against any person, licensed under the laws of this State or of any other state to sell alcoholic liquor, who, by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, within or without the territorial limits of this State, causes the intoxication of such person." The sale of liquor makes the store liable. The Complaint alleges the liquor store gave him an cup and ice so he could "immediately" begin drinking. This is just a complaint and may be tossed by the courts if it is without merit. The law seems ridiculous. Fortinately, the payout is limited to approximately $60,000.00 and the lawyers and court costs will eat that.
I cannot believe this is an isolated incident and Gorney hasn't displayed this behavior - getting drunk - before, making the mother also liable as she was aware this could happen. If Illinois apportions blame in civil court, she could be found liable herself if she sues there.