Spring Break
The Daily OrangeNevada lawsuit frivolous, suspect
By
Posted: 4/19/04, 2:17 AM EST Section: Opinion
A Reno, Nev. woman has filed a lawsuit against the Coors Brewing Co., claiming they played a role in the drunken driving death of her 19-year-old son, Ryan Pisco. Jodie Pisco has accused Coors of "glorifying a culture of youth, sex and glamour while hiding the dangers of alcohol abuse and addiction." Furthermore, Pisco has named her son's girlfriend and his girlfriend's mother in the lawsuit due to the fact the car which her son wrecked and died in belonged to the girlfriend and was given to her by her mother.
The Daily Orange sees Pisco's lawsuit as a frivolous one, indicative of America's litigation-obsessed culture and testament to this woman's insistence on alleviating her son of his own responsibility in his demise. This suit is a poor example of where blame should lie, if anywhere, in the instance of a tragedy.
The suit against Coors is predicated by cases brought against and decided against tobacco companies. Companies in these instances have little culpability when the individuals are well aware of the consequences attached to consumption of the company's products.
The encompassing nature of Jodie Pisco's suit is revealing; targeting a girlfriend and her mother in addition to a company, along with the fact Prisco is seeking "unspecified damages," suggests she is taking aim at whatever she can to seek financial compensation. This is highly suspect.
Also, it is ridiculous to sue specifically the Coors Brewing Co. simply because Ryan Pisco had consumed Coors at a party prior to his drunken driving fatality in 2002. Beer is beer; alcohol is alcohol; no one company is more appropriate to sue than another for the death of a minor in a drunken driving accident. The ridiculousness of the suit against Coors is exacerbated when one considers that Coors itself sells beer only to distributors - who, in turn, sell the product directly to consumers and are charged with not selling to minors.
Coors, along with other major beer producers, have been quite explicit in stating they are not seeking underage consumers. While they certainly do promote a glamorized version of youth and sex to sell their product as Pisco has claimed - she need also realize the same is true of every other company selling a consumer product in mainstream America. Accusing Coors of this and hoping it indicts them in some way is asinine when such marketing techniques have permeated out culture so deeply. When a company portrays an attractive lifestyle in its ads to tie a product to it, it are not doing so in a maliciously deceitful way.
Furthermore, Coors in no way, shape or form has ever claimed there are not risks involved with drinking beer - and certainly doesn't advocate its customers driving while intoxicated. To suggest that Coors, Ryan Pisco's girlfriend or her mother are each or individually responsible for the death in this tragedy gets to the very heart of this issue - that Jodie Pisco is trying to push responsibility for her son's death onto others. Instead, she needs to realize who is responsible for her son's death. Ryan Pisco made the decision to drive while drunk, and no one but him can be blamed for the fact he hit a telephone pole at 90 miles per hour.
The Daily Orange sees Pisco's lawsuit as a frivolous one, indicative of America's litigation-obsessed culture and testament to this woman's insistence on alleviating her son of his own responsibility in his demise. This suit is a poor example of where blame should lie, if anywhere, in the instance of a tragedy.
The suit against Coors is predicated by cases brought against and decided against tobacco companies. Companies in these instances have little culpability when the individuals are well aware of the consequences attached to consumption of the company's products.
The encompassing nature of Jodie Pisco's suit is revealing; targeting a girlfriend and her mother in addition to a company, along with the fact Prisco is seeking "unspecified damages," suggests she is taking aim at whatever she can to seek financial compensation. This is highly suspect.
Also, it is ridiculous to sue specifically the Coors Brewing Co. simply because Ryan Pisco had consumed Coors at a party prior to his drunken driving fatality in 2002. Beer is beer; alcohol is alcohol; no one company is more appropriate to sue than another for the death of a minor in a drunken driving accident. The ridiculousness of the suit against Coors is exacerbated when one considers that Coors itself sells beer only to distributors - who, in turn, sell the product directly to consumers and are charged with not selling to minors.
Coors, along with other major beer producers, have been quite explicit in stating they are not seeking underage consumers. While they certainly do promote a glamorized version of youth and sex to sell their product as Pisco has claimed - she need also realize the same is true of every other company selling a consumer product in mainstream America. Accusing Coors of this and hoping it indicts them in some way is asinine when such marketing techniques have permeated out culture so deeply. When a company portrays an attractive lifestyle in its ads to tie a product to it, it are not doing so in a maliciously deceitful way.
Furthermore, Coors in no way, shape or form has ever claimed there are not risks involved with drinking beer - and certainly doesn't advocate its customers driving while intoxicated. To suggest that Coors, Ryan Pisco's girlfriend or her mother are each or individually responsible for the death in this tragedy gets to the very heart of this issue - that Jodie Pisco is trying to push responsibility for her son's death onto others. Instead, she needs to realize who is responsible for her son's death. Ryan Pisco made the decision to drive while drunk, and no one but him can be blamed for the fact he hit a telephone pole at 90 miles per hour.
