Zow
Footballguy
I don't know. Perhaps there is some dram shop law in that state that calls for strict liability. Perhaps there are facts that are unknown to us based on one media article that demonstrate that the store clearly knew or should have known they were selling to minors as the ID said something like "McLovin" on the name and was oddly colored. Perhaps the store was well-insured and the insurance company's lawyers and adjusters made the call.
What I do know, though, from firsthand experience in talking to reports (both local and national, as well as beat and investigative) and seeing my own cases published in the media, is that one should never judge the merits of a case or whether a settlement makes sense based on a media article. To be clear, I'm not at all suggesting that media stories are "fake news" or written with some slanted agenda as the overwhelming majority of reporters/journalists/documentarians I've spoke with genuinely seem most interested in objective truth. But, the reality is that there is only so much that can be shared, the reporter himself or herself is not a lawyer (and therefore may make honest mistakes as to crucial facts and the framing of a particular issue), and the article cannot possibly be written to be long enough to include all details.
In short, if a case is an iceberg, at best what we see in the media is the tip above water and there will always be a significant amount under the surface that the media, for good reason(s), isn't showing you.
That’s just incompetence and failure all around. How can the court be so dumb to not take their phones? And how can the jurors be so dumb as to intentionally watch the questioning that they HAVE to know they shouldn’t be watching?!
