Thanks. That is what I thought, but wasn't sure.Less likely to OD when snorting cocaine. Absorption is self limiting when snorting due to vasoconstriction effects.
You know you can shoot coke too, right?Sorry, didn't specify. Was speaking nasal vs IV.
The question was about crack, which is generally smoked and has a lower risk of OD than regular coke. But, yeah, IV usage is by far the most dangerous; that's more typical of regular coke (really, you have to reverse the coke->crack process by dissolving crack in vinegar to be able to shoot it, so there's no point in converting to crack if you're going to shoot it up).Sorry, didn't specify. Was speaking nasal vs IV.
What about under your tongue or up your bum?Sorry, didn't specify. Was speaking nasal vs IV.
Depends. Is one of those guys famous and adored?I think that should be the takeaway. Imagine a story where 3 guys in their 20s get drunk and coked up at a bar, get into their SUV, take it up to near maximum speed despite poor driving conditions, and slam headfirst into a telephone pole with the result that all of them are killed. I doubt many here would pick "tragedy" as the first word they'd use to describe that situation.
I can't find the reference now, but wasn't there a phone call from Fernandez made to a friend shortly before the incident when they left the club where he made reference to the driver(aka not him operating)? Am I not remembering this correctly or was that retracted?Honest question - how could they ever determine who was driving? Weren't all the bodies thrown from the boat? It's not like walking up to a car crash and someone is in the driver's seat.
Found itAuthorities have interviewed a “highly reliable” witness who said he was on the phone with Fernandez just before the crash and heard the pitcher giving another person directions about where to steer the boat, he said.
“If you tell me that he’d been drinking, I’d say, ‘So?’ He wasn’t driving — and he was very careful about that,” family attorney Ralph E. Fernandez added.
Deaths are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the societal damage alcohol causes though. Plus cocaine overdoses are most often the result of combining it with alcohol.Cocaine use is about 5-10 times as deadly as alcohol use, per capita (about 36 per 10000 cocaine users will overdose in a given year, compared to about 6 deaths per 10000 alcohol users). That's actually skewed in favor of cocaine, as it's comparing just ODs from cocaine to all alcohol-related deaths (including others killed in car accidents, etc).
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/cocaine/what-scope-cocaine-use-in-united-states
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-health/overview-alcohol-consumption/alcohol-facts-and-statistics
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-topics/trends-statistics/overdose-death-rates
Is the discussion about whether Fernandez was noticeably intoxicated relevant to the wrongful death claims against his estate? That is, is there an assumption of the risk defense if the estate can show his friends knew or should've known he was drunk/high and got on the boat with him anyways?I think it had something to do with his girlfriend/baby's mother. The finding that Fernandez was operating the boat will be significant regarding wrongful death claims against his estate. His blood alcohol level was .146. The limit for presumptive impairment in FL is .08. He also had cocaine in his system. FWIW, that BAL, on average, is in the "others will notice" category of intoxication - slurred speech, poor coordination and judgment, the occasional stumble, etc. It's not quite, again on average, staggering drunk, or falling down drunk, but it's impaired.
There are probably some nuances in here - perhaps the finding is not conclusive, or maybe there's a post-death blood alcohol level effect, or maybe Fernandez was habituated to that blood alcohol level. However, absent some strong mitigating factor, the most-likely scenario is simply: Fernandez drank to the point where he clearly shouldn't be behind the wheel and thereby killed himself and two of his friends.
In terms of Fernandez's legacy, on one hand, it's often unjust to condemn a person's whole life for one bad decision. On the other hand, I doubt this was the first time Fernandez did this, the circumstances were entirely of his own making, and the final consequences, the deaths of two other people, are pretty much impossible to balance against someone who played a sport infectiously. That pushes his death from "unfortunate or avoidable tragedy" into "what a fucking asshole" territory. Not that the guy in any way deserved to die, but the way he actually did (killing others with him) pretty much destroys any positive legacy he had.
Isn't this per se negligence? Is assumption of risk an affirmative defense that's even available?Is the discussion about whether Fernandez was noticeably intoxicated relevant to the wrongful death claims against his estate? That is, is there an assumption of the risk defense if the estate can show his friends knew or should've known he was drunk/high and got on the boat with him anyways?
“A passenger who is aware that intoxication has deprived the driver of reasonable control of the automobile may be found to be negligent, Strychalski v Dailey, 65 AD3d 546, 883 NYS2d 586 (2d Dept 2009); Bergeron v Hyer, 55 AD2d 1001, 391 NYS2d 767 (4th Dept 1977); Verdino v Hayes, 10 AD2d 978, 201 NYS2d 853 (2d Dept 1960); Burnell v La Fountain, 6 AD2d 586, 180 NYS2d 52 (3d Dept 1958). To take the issue to the jury there must be evidence, in addition to the fact that the parties drank together, from which impairment of driving ability can reasonably be inferred, Eisenberg v Green, 33 AD2d 756, 305 NYS2d 769 (1st Dept 1969); see Coleman v New York City Transit Authority, 37 NY2d 137, 371 NYS2d 663, 332 NE2d 850 (1975).”Is the discussion about whether Fernandez was noticeably intoxicated relevant to the wrongful death claims against his estate? That is, is there an assumption of the risk defense if the estate can show his friends knew or should've known he was drunk/high and got on the boat with him anyways?
Like Pelle Lindberg 31 years later.In terms of Fernandez's legacy, on one hand, it's often unjust to condemn a person's whole life for one bad decision. On the other hand, I doubt this was the first time Fernandez did this, the circumstances were entirely of his own making, and the final consequences, the deaths of two other people, are pretty much impossible to balance against someone who played a sport infectiously. That pushes his death from "unfortunate or avoidable tragedy" into "what a fucking asshole" territory. Not that the guy in any way deserved to die, but the way he actually did (killing others with him) pretty much destroys any positive legacy he had.
Not a comment on the sad story about Fernandez but thought you all would be interested to know that the Utah legislature is looking at reducing DUI offenses from .08 to .05 BAC.
Is the discussion about whether Fernandez was noticeably intoxicated relevant to the wrongful death claims against his estate? That is, is there an assumption of the risk defense if the estate can show his friends knew or should've known he was drunk/high and got on the boat with him anyways?
Isn't this per se negligence? Is assumption of risk an affirmative defense that's even available?
Y'all are good. This is not my area of practice, so take all that follows with a grain of salt. I know for sure that FL is a comparative negligence state. I'm pretty sure there is no express or implied assumption of risk available under these facts, since that usually involves risks intrinsic to the act - like expected physical contact during athletics perhaps leading to injury. But there's no intrinsically expected crash, with the chance that it may or may not result in injury. Under comparative negligence that facts that would animate an assumption of risk defense could probably be used to argue the defendants were also negligent and bear a percentage of the cause of their injury. However, that's not an absolute defense - at most, it's a reduction of the final award by like percentage. It will ultimately be up to the jury.If they were all high on cocaine and drunk does it matter who was driving?
True, but if you’re going to rob someone, giving them a drug that makes them hyper alert and paranoid might not be your best move and that’s not something you need to be particularly bright or well-educated to know.When doing those scenarios how hard is it to put yourself in the mindset of someone that may not exactly be criminal mastermind.
Sure, Mr. Law School might figure it out...
Yep. And presumably anyone in that situation has the cocaine in hand, and therefore knows what it does.True, but if you’re going to rob someone, giving them a drug that makes them hyper alert and paranoid might not be your best move and that’s not something you need to be particularly bright or well-educated to know.
Happens all the time, I'm sure. Why leave it a home or in your car's trunk when you can take it with you on a boat?Supposedly the $15K was for tipping park employees the next day before the game