Alcohol providers deserve blame in death

A lawsuit stemming from a 2005 car crash could bring a measure of liability to people who provide alcohol to minors.

In March 2005, five people, including two who were MSU students at the time, were involved in supplying alcohol to Alexander Hamil, a 19-year-old Marshall, Mich., resident. After a night of drinking to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, Hamil stole an MSU vehicle and was involved in a crash that killed an Okemos resident.

Now the victim’s family has filed suit against the providers of Hamil’s alcohol and each could be required to pay $25,000 by the court — all for a bottle of Popov vodka.

The victim’s family has a right to seek damages from those people. They were directly responsible for the alcohol that played a large part in a death resulting from drunken driving. It was St. Patrick’s Day, and the members of the group were fully aware Hamil was likely to drink in excess. They should have made sure he had a safe place to be for the night. Any small amount of preparation could have prevented this from happening.

The reality of this lawsuit doesn’t bode well for many party throwers on campus. If the court finds the defendants responsible, any person who provides for a minor could be held liable for that person’s actions. At a party, the hosts could potentially be held accountable for any minor that drinks their alcohol. And that’s how it should be.

Legal drinkers are another story, however. When a person turns 21, they are mature enough to drink responsibly in the eyes of the law. If they get in trouble while under the influence, it’s on their head. Friends should absolutely still stop of-age friends from driving or getting into trouble, but if it happens, they shouldn’t be liable.

This suit is meant to increase responsibility of people who supply alcohol to the underaged. To set an example, if you supply for someone who acts irresponsibly, you should be the one to make sure that person doesn’t drive or hurt themselves. That’s fair. The five won’t face any jail time because this case is a civil suit and not a criminal trial. The only penalty these people stand to face is financial. All things considered, they easily could have faced something far more severe.

However, this case shouldn’t be treated like an isolated incident. It’s part of a much bigger problem. This case is a punishment, not a means of prevention. Suing those who provide for minors will illustrate a lesson to offenders, but won’t curtail future underage drinking. This lawsuit doesn’t get to the root of the problem.

Young people’s perception toward alcohol is what needs to be fixed. Underage drinking has been treated like premarital sex — abstinence has been given priority over responsible enjoyment. When those who have been sheltered reach an environment like college, the results can be dangerous. Kids who are only taught to not drink oftentimes don’t learn moderation when they start. People under 21 shouldn’t drink, but if they do, they should at least know how to do it safely.