Posted on 06/03/2005 8:50:34 PM PDT by SmithL
STUART, Fla. (Court TV) — A car crash that left two teens dead and another in prison continues to afflict this small coastal town nearly three years after the fatal accident.
Stephen Bromstrup, 16, allegedly downed several beers that he sneaked into a June 17, 2002, pool party that Barbara and John O'Brien threw for their 14-year-old daughter.
After the party, Bromstrup and two friends, Daniel Downes and Matthew Gordon, climbed into a 1988 Pontiac Firebird and took off through the O'Briens' upscale neighborhood, according to police.
Prosecutors say Bromstrup raced through a stop sign at 70 miles an hour and plowed into a Cadillac.
Two passengers in the Cadillac, Sarah Stone, 14, and Alexandra Quaroni, 13, were killed; another, Jennifer McKinney, 14, was thrown through the rear window and suffered a broken pelvis and fractured skull.
According to police, Bromstrup had a blood-alcohol level of 0.041 percent when he skidded 237 feet into an intersection at about 11:30 p.m. Although the level is below what Florida law considers impaired, Bromstrup was a minor and thus violated the law. Florida law presumes a person is impaired with a 0.08 percent blood alcohol level.
Bromstrup pleaded no contest to vehicular homicide and other related charges and was sentenced to seven years in prison in 2003.
Now, the parents of Sarah Stone are suing the hosts of the cookout for wrongful death.
The complaint, filed in the 19th Judicial Circuit in Martin County, claims the O'Briens broke the law because they did not "take reasonable steps to prevent the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages by a minor" at the open party they hosted for their daughter.
The complaint alleges Daniel Downes illegally purchased a 12-pack of beer at A&M Discount Beverage, which he then shared with Bromstrup before and after the cookout.
The complaint also states Bromstrup sped through the 25-mph zone, where the accident occurred at the urging of Downes, who told him, "Do it again." The provocation referred to the high speed that they had reached on the way to the party.
Although several other claims surrounding the accident were settled out of court, the O'Briens are continuing with the case. Their attorneys will likely argue they are not responsible for Bromstrup's alcohol consumption by asserting he drank after the party, not during.
Opening arguments are expected to begin Monday. Several of the teens who attended the party are expected to testify, as is Stephen Bromstrup and parents of both victims.
Because of the publicity surrounding the case, Judge Charles Smith issued a gag order that prevents either side from speaking to reporters.
The trial is expected to last two weeks and will be streamed live on Court TV Extra.
Details, details. The over-riding fact is the O'Briens probably have sizeable life insurance policies, homeowners insurance policies and automobile insurance policies that can be mined.
Damn the torpedos (not to mention any sense of justice and commmon sense), full speed ahead! Thar's gold in them thar insurance policies!
They had no knowledge there was even beer being consumed at their house, and they guy wasn't even drunk - according to the statements of witnesses he pulled the exact same stunt while he was sober before the party.
Money grubbing doesn't even begin to describe it.
This blood alcohol could be caused by one or perhaps one and a half beers. The premise that a person with a 0.04% blood alcohol level is drunk, is absurd.
What was obviously taking place, was that the kid was driving like an idiot. Sadly, many youth are prone to do such things.
Why not sue the car manufacturer? Why not sue the car dealer? Why not sue the parents for helping the kid buy the car? Why not sue the local government since they issue licenses to young people? They're probably more culpable than those who threw the party.
Tragedies exist in life. It's sad but true. Screwing up more peoples lives just because misfortune has frowned on yours, is a very selfish thing to do.
OK, with a deep breath I'll say it: I'm kinda glad this is happening because I recall my fear, when my offspring were in high school, that in spite of my diligence regarding who they were with, or at whose home they were at, there might be one of those lam-brained parents or couples who allowed kids to have alcohol or gave them pot (the latter did in fact happen once and I went ballistic). If the government can make corporate owners/directors responsible for accounting records then I think parents need to be really, really diligent about what goes on in their home. Now hit me.
.041 bac doesn't make you blow through a stop sign at 70mph, gross irresponsibility does.
You gonna go into your bathroom to hold the hand of every teen that comes over to your house? After you get charged for being a pervert, you can tell the judge that you felt it your responsibilty to keep an eye on the kid, in case they had a beer hidden on them & were going to get into some huge crash on their drive home.
It'd be interesting to see if any practicing attorneys confirm my guesses.
As far as I'm concerned, that's all a defense attorney would have to say.
Try reading the article next time and not skimming through it. It said they bought it illegally and snuck it into the party. Should the parents have sniffed the breath of every kid at the cookout? What should the parents have done differantly?
Akid come by your house after he has consumed a beer and then leaves. You should be sued??? Maybe the parents for providing the moron with a Firebird or whatever it was but the parents having a pool party?
What a moronic idea.
John Edwards LOVES people like you.
Wonder how many shots of Nyquil will get ya to .04?
Pointless. They should sue themselves for raising deviant kids.
Does Florida have a Dram Shop Law?
Actually it doesn't say they snuck it into the party but consumed it before and after the party(IMO probably in their car)
What does this mean exactly? From this day forward any party helf for minors must also be accompanied by a notaraized certificate that the parents of all minor guests have been instructed in basic morals? Lacking that, should the minor guests or the parents of the minor guest be held liable for being just too plain busy to know what their kids are up to? Or should we just charge the hosts of the party for the minors because the parents of their guest raised crappy dung sacks of humanoids who have no respect for the law or other people's live. Oh golly gee, this is a tough one! (not)
After the party, Bromstrup and two friends, Daniel Downes and Matthew Gordon, climbed into a 1988 Pontiac Firebird and took off through the O'Briens' upscale neighborhood, according to police.
upscale - ca-ching, ca-ching. Don't sue the butthead arrogant kid, he has no assets. Dont' sue the parent of the butthead kid. Where the mother load lies is in them thar insurance policies of the "upscale" neighborhood dwellers. They should have known this kid had no sense of repsonsibility and that his parents were just too plain busy building on to their double wide at the time.
Two passengers in the Cadillac, Sarah Stone, 14, and Alexandra Quaroni, 13, were killed; another, Jennifer McKinney, 14, was thrown through the rear window and suffered a broken pelvis and fractured skull.
And who exactly was driving this care. None of the aforementioned were old enough to have a drivers license. Whoever hosted this party need to make sure than only those of age and with legal drivers licence drive....ever. Also anyone without a notarized statement of character should never be invited to a party. That should take care of all that.
Stephen Bromstrup, 16, allegedly downed several beers that he sneaked into a June 17, 2002, pool party that Barbara and John O'Brien threw for their 14-year-old daughter.
???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.