Should Strip Club be Liable for Allowing a Patron to Drive Drunk?

The Illinois Supreme Court recently ruled that a strip club could be sued for allowing a patron to drive drunk. The patron then crashed into a car in oncoming traffic, killing that motorist and her unborn child, as well as the passenger in his car. See http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/beaconnews/news/2110464,Diamonds-strip-club-lawsuit_AU031810.article.

While I feel terrible for the victims and their families for their loss, I believe that only the drunk driver should be held responsible for their deaths. The driver was convicted of aggravated DUI and sentenced to 12 years in prison. The strip club that the driver was at did not even serve alcohol, and it appears that the driver was kicked out of the club.

Shouldn’t owners of private businesses be allowed to kick people out of their establishments for unruly behavior and not have to worry about a lawsuit being filed? Can we really expect business owners to babysit adults and take responsibility for their bad behavior? What should the employees of the strip club have done, called a cab? There is no guarantee that the driver would have gone along with that. He obviously drove to the strip club in the first place, how he was going to get home if he was not kicked out? Obviously he would have driven.

I can understand holding bars and taverns accountable because they serve the drinks. But to blame a private establishment for a driver’s drinking and driving when they were not the ones serving the drinks seems a bit much to me.

Double Jeopardy on Red Light Camera Tickets?

The Chicago Tribune had an interesting article about a driver who was issued a ticket for running through a red light by a Chicago police officer. http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/problemsolver/ct-biz-0316-problem-brown-20100316,0,6061431.column

The driver paid the $75 ticket; however, he then received a red light violation in the mail because a red light camera also caught him. The administrative penalty for the red light camera violation was $100.

A person cannot be punished twice for the same crime. That is called Double Jeopardy and it is not permissible under the US Constitution. Eventually, this driver was able to get the administrative penalty vacated based on double jeopardy principles.

This case presents many interesting issues for DUI clients and their attorneys. If a police officer is using a traffic infraction as the basis for probable cause to stop a motorist for a DUI, and there is a red light camera at that particular intersection, the pictures taken from that camera should be subpoenaed immediately by the motorist’s attorney. Especially if the police officer’s basis for the stop is that the motorist ran the red light, but he is not issued a ticket in the mail for the infraction. This video may provide proof that the traffic infraction was not in fact committed. Thus, there may be a motion to throw out the whole DUI case.

Are New Buyers Doing Their Due Diligence?

With The overabundance of downtown condominiums for sale in the Chicago “green zone,” it is certainly a buyer’s market. Many sellers are desperate to get out and willing to take five figure losses. Some are negotiating short sales with their lenders or just outright handing the keys to their lenders. This is because they owe more money than their condo is worth.

Buyers today are very picky, requiring all the bells and whistles such as granite countertops, maple cabinets, and stainless steel appliances. However, are they missing one of the most important issues? Many of these condominium developments built in the last 10 years during the bubble were built with poor construction standards. Developers tried to squeeze every penny out of these condos and in the process compromised construction standards. They then turned these buildings over to condominium associates with inadequate reserves and low assessments. In addition, city inspectors for the city of Chicago were often inexperienced political hires who did not hold developers feet to the fire when it comes to building code violations.

In order to protect themselves from a large special assessment in the near future to repair or replace common elements of the building such as masonry, roofs, or elevators, buyers need to look at the reserve levels of the association. Reserves should be sufficient to repair or replace these big ticket items mentioned above. Depending on the size of the building, these costs can ranch from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars. Buyers should also have their attorney review the association meeting minutes and the annual budget to see if any special assessments have been discussed or if there are any unusual or unbudgeted expenses in the budget.

If the association is inadequately funded, buyers should ask if a reserve study has been performed on the building to determine future capital expenses. If the condominium building was built during the bubble, there are inadequate reserves, and no reserve study to determine future costs, buyers are subjecting themselves to significant cost down the road.

While features such as granite countertops and stainless steel appliances are nice, purchasing a condominium in a well built building with an adequate reserve account is just as important. If you are looking to purchase a condominium downtown, make sure this is a priority for you and make sure you have a lawyer who will do the proper investigation for you.

Texting While Driving

It is hard to debate the merits of the new Illinois law that bans texting while driving. Sure we all have done it, but it is hard to argue that it is not dangerous. Certainly texting distracts drivers to the point of creating a real danger on the road for all of us.

However, does the new Illinois law also give police officers new discretion to justify traffic stops that lead to DUI or drug arrests?

The law states as follows: “A person may not operate a motor vehicle on a roadway while using an electronic communication device to compose, send, or read an electronic message.” 625 ILCS 5/12-610.2(b).

“Reading an electronic message” is pretty broad language. Does that include looking at a phone to see a phone number of a person calling? Does it include looking up a phone number to dial even when using a handsfree device? Could a police officer’s testimony that he saw a driver looking down and that the driver had a hand held device in the car be enough for a traffic stop?

I forsee DUI and drug arrests being made with this new law being used as the reason to conduct the traffic stop. Does this new Illinois law give police officers too much discretion to stop drivers?