October 19th, 2011

Charlie Davies: Legal Entanglements

Image: Jeff Golden/Getty Images.

It has been reported that D.C. United striker Charlie Davies is suing the owner of the nightclub for serving alcohol to a woman who then went on to cause the accident that almost ended his career.

His suit claims that Das Enterprises, who own The Shadow Room in Washington D.C., and Red Bull North America, who were co-hosting a party at the venue, continued to serve Maria Alejandra Espinoza at a special event on 12th October 2009, despite some accounts that said she was ‘visibly intoxicated’.

Espinoza went on to cause the SUV accident that injured Davies and killed 22-year-old Ashley Roberta, and is currently serving two years in jail.

D.C. United player girlfriend soccer accidentDavies is back playing for his side, but has not received a call-up from the USMNT since the accident and still suffers ‘great pain of the body and mind’ as well as coping with ‘substantial medical expenses’.

A case conference is scheduled for January 13th next year. Couple this with the news that Charlie is apparently getting married to long-term girlfriend Nina in June, we expect you’ll be seeing a lot more of him on this site.

Related Posts with Thumbnails

12 Responses to “Charlie Davies: Legal Entanglements”

  1. die steel says:

    I like this kind mutual communication very much. I can learn much from that. The opinion that everyone gives also can be as useful information.

  2. Beeyebickiebuy says:

    Charlie Davies' are the fault of Charlie Davies. Period. He ignored his team's curfew. He got into the car. No one forced him to be there after hours. No one forced him into the car. these were decisions that he made. It sickens me that he is trying to profit from making bad decision and not accepting accountability for the same.

  3. LexInChitown says:

    I wish Davies all the best, and hope to see him back on the USMNT in his pre-accident form, but really isn't he at fault for getting into a car being driven by someone who is obviously intoxicated? I don't know how he can possibly win a case like this.

    • Rossanera says:

      From a legal perspective, dram shop liability (that's what attorneys call this, suing the provider of alcohol) allows for recovery ONLY when it can be proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knew or should have known that the customer was intoxicated. Most states also recognize what we refer to as "contributory negligence" – in this case, for example, Davies and Roberta either allowing her to drive or getting into the car with her. Depending on what the standard of D.C.'s/Maryland's dram shop act provides (they vary across states, some are more stringent than others – in Texas, for example, liability can be imposed only where "a patron must be so obviously intoxicated that he presents a clear danger to himself and others"); he may or may not recover.

  4. Hot4Spurs says:

    I do think that night clubs/pubs should stop serving someone if they are visably drunk. But, how were they to know that this idiot woman was going to drive? I really can't believe that she is only serving two years for DUI w/homicide. And in America, she'll probably actually serve less time if her behavior is good while she's in jail. The laws and sentencing are not strict enough for this. I feel bad that he's in so much pain.

    • April says:

      Right… while I clearly have sympathy for Davies and the passenger that fell victim, the responsibility regarding driving while intoxicated is really that of Espinoza, and I would like to think that she will never be allowed to drive again and should probably not ever drink again. However, this is how law suits go here.. you sue everyone related to the incident, no matter how absurd, because you never know when one will luck out. It's exploitive and sort of takes away the desire to rule in favor of the victim, but it is the common practice.

    • Hot4Spurs says:

      I went back to the article to watch the video. It shocks me that while the killer was out on bail that she was pictured several times still out drinking shots and partying while she was awaiting trial. This does not sound like someone who is truly sorry or rehabilitated.

      • April says:

        Ugh… that is really saddening :( . If I did something irresponsible that resulted in someone's death and almost killing another… I mean, I would seriously question my life. And I would surely give up the sauce that got me there (and I love my wine, but really… wouldn't think twice about it).

  5. MsLiverpoolLady says:

    I can understand how this whole experience must have shaken the very foundation of his life. I don't know if I agree with suing the bar who served her the drinks though. She should have stopped drinking, she should have taken some responsibility for her actions and she should be serving more than two years in jail for killing someone because she was a drunk idiot. But suing the bar takes that girls personal responsibility out of the equation and if we need more of anything in the world it is people who take responsibility and deal with the consequences of their own actions. If I were him I would be doing what I could to see that she stays in jail.

    • Rossanera says:

      Just because he's suing the bar doesn't mean she'll be absolved of responsibility. She's serving a criminal sentence; his suit against the bar is a negligence case, which is an altogether different matter. In incidents such as these the law allows victims to hold multiple people responsible to varying degrees.

      • April says:

        This is true.. I am sure if she hasn't already been put through the ringer for it, she is going to see some civil suits come her way as well. We also don't know that the suit against the bar will be fruitful, it is really just the common practice here. His lawyer would be considered foolish not to advise the suit, these days.