A good ruling by the supreme court. Now if they would just realize that guns don't kill people it's people that kill people with guns.

rule 1 never let minors drink on your property, rule 2 never let anyone who is drunk leave your property driving any kind of vehicle, even if it means loss of a friendship, better that than loss of someones life. and most important rule 3 be a responsible host and drinker.

The parents were aware yes but the kids also know and are very much aware if their ability to drive is impared. I dont know about many of you here but when we graduated from high scoll we had a class party and alcohol was served we found away to get it without parents buying it yes they knew where we going on class party night but they doesnt make them responsible for my actions, as young adults we have choices. how many of you guys drank under age? did your parents know you did? the laws are tougher now adays and to some extent I agree yet on the other hand if they are old enough to serve their country what is wrong with a few beers on graduation with adult supervision. I no longer drink alcohol but i did when I was younger and i bet a few of the people making comments did to.

So NO one should ever be held responsible for
anything they let happen , even though they
know its wrong. This family could have been
killed, this girl could have been killed, and it all could have been prevented by these parents
stepping up and being responsible.

I think that parents should be held accountable for their children interms of instilling good values and judgement. The parents need to be more aware when their childrens friends are around.

Seriously? If the parents knew the kids were drinking alcohol on the premises, they should have taken away their keys. The kids should have been forced to find safe transportation or stay the night. As for the parents that are out of town... doesn't anyone have neighbors? We have teenagers across the street. When ever their parents are out of town we are given keys to the home and asked to check on things from time to time. They've NEVER had a party there. Maybe if more people took responsibility for their own actions these days, we wouldn't live in the mess we do. Oh, and by the way, children are a parent's responsibility.

Below is the link to the actual Wisconsin Supreme Court opinion, that just came out today. There is a lot to read, but a quick glance seems to suggest just what the Gazette story says: The Court is not going to 'create laws from the bench'. That is, after all, what gets the conservative movement all riled up, right--when judges do that?

http://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/Displ...

Amen Dan!!!

There is a difference between MORAL liability, and LEGAL liability. The legislature may change the law if this is deemed a critical gap. But we can't just have judges ruling the way they think the law should have been written.

But the key here is to look at the facts...
THE PARENTS KNEW... They may not have supplied the alcohol but they knew what the kids were doing.

As a responsible parent why the xxxx would you not put a stop to it???

I have been in this spot before and I called parents and had them come and get their kids, NO ONE drove and I did not KNOW they had alcohol until at some point in the evening.

Kids these days are very resourceful when they want to do something.

So I did not supply the alcohol did I allow them to drink...

XXXX NO......

like most of the gazette blog posts there is a lot of info that is missing that will clear up some of the questions. The Capital Times version of the story contains a lot more detail. the key is the parents did not supply the alcohol for the party. to quote the TCT article:

"The Supreme Court reversed that decision on Tuesday, dismissing the parents from the lawsuit. Allowing the case to go forward would be a significant extension of liability that should be decided by the Legislature, Justice Patrick Crooks wrote for the court.

Wisconsin does have a law imposing liability on hosts who serve alcohol to minors.

Crooks noted liability for injuries caused by underage drinkers has always been based on "the affirmative acts of a defendant, such as procuring, furnishing or dispensing alcohol."

In this case, Crooks noted the parents did not provide the alcohol and did not know the student was drunk when she left in her car.

"The (parents) could not reasonably have foreseen that an underage guest who they were not specifically aware was intoxicated, and who arrived at the premises under their control with alcohol purchased elsewhere, would cause foreseeable harm to others," he wrote.

Crooks said expanding the liability for this case would have "no sensible or just stopping point" in the future. Parents whose children have parties while they are out of town could be held liable for injuries because they should have known that was likely, he wrote."

YES

well thats just like trying to go back and get the bartenders who let people knowingly leave when they know they are far to intoxicated to drive. i just saw this last weekend now why cant they go get the bartenders if someone leaves there bar and gets into an accident and hurts or kills someone. should that bar be held lieable?

So the lady in Evansville who provided the alcohol to Dane Wourms does not get jail time and now can not be sued??? She is a adult, who knew better and a young man died because she let him drink..
I surely hope their are changes soon about this...

This case will not be over any time soon. The lawsuit lawyers looking for a buck are cringing at this. Mommy and daddy have the pocketbooks, not the kids.

I am sure that the Janesville parents who knowingly host drinking parties for their teens are overjoyed about this ruling!