Major update in Paul Murdaugh boat crash that killed Mallory Beach as judge sides with her family ahead of trial
A JUDGE has denied a local business's request to be dismissed from a wrongful death lawsuit involving a young woman who was killed in a boat crash.
Mallory Beach, 19, was launched to her death after Paul Murdaugh, also 19 at the time, drunkenly crashed into a bridge in 2019.
4
4
4
4
Beach's family has now filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the Parker's Kitchens convenience store chain and accused them of allegedly selling alcohol to minors.
The parent company filed a motion to be dismissed from the trial in early May, but was denied by the South Carolina judge, the Beach's family lawyer Mark Tinsley told ABC affiliate WCIV.
"Parker's motion bordered on being frivolous and seems to have been intended to spread a false narrative, so we fully expected the judge to deny it," Tinsley said.
Mallory was one of six teenagers on the boat when Paul, crashed into a bridge at around 2.20am on February 24, 2019.
read more sun stories
The 19-year-old was drunk driving the boat and allegedly went "full throttle" at the bridge after an argument with the group, the lawsuit states.
He was found to be driving under the influence of alcohol and subsequently, Parker's Corporation was also named after its store sold alcohol to the underage driver.
Paul was murdered by his father Alex Murdaugh who was sentenced to life in prison for killing both his son and his wife.
In a previous hearing against Alex Murdaugh in February, Mark Tinsley, the Beach family attorney, discussed insurance policies and noted the use of an ID given to Paul by his older brother.
Most read in The US Sun
He said that no policy would apply to the circumstances and "it would be limited to an idea that Alex was negligent in allowing Buster to give Paul the duplicate ID that he had made so Paul could purchase alcohol."
On the night of the crash, Paul was seen on surveillance footage from the Parker store buying alcohol while underage.
The lawsuit from the Beach family claims that the store "knowingly sold alcohol to a minor and both the corporation and cashier need to be held accountable.
The company denies negligence and all claims made against it in the lawsuit.
Parker's attorneys argued that no laws were knowingly broken by the employees present.
Parker's lead attorney, PK Shere argued that the store clerk checked and scanned the ID which showed up as valid, and therefore did her due diligence.
According to a report of the hearing by WCSC, the attorneys for the company added: “The truth is that Parker’s was not negligent because there is no evidence to support the position that Parker’s knowingly sold alcohol to a minor.”
The argument also turned toward the actions of the teenagers on the boat, stating that Beach knowingly got on the boat with the drunk driver and therefore, knew the risk she was taking.
The attorney argued: “The undisputed facts show that the plaintiff must have knowledge of the facts constituting a dangerous condition.
"That dangerous condition being getting on a boat with no lights, no life jacket, on a cold, foggy night with someone who you know has had a history of drinking in excess and making a decision are you going to get on that boat or night?”
This argument was supported by Anthony Cook who said at the hearing that there was a conversation about getting an Uber because events were escalating to a dangerous level, meaning they were aware of the risks.
Meanwhile, Tinsley hit back arguing in court that underage passengers are not able to understand the risks associated with alcohol and make informed decisions, and added that the alcohol sale should never have taken place.
According to the Beach's lawyer, the legislature has made statutorily clear that the issue of use, sale, or possession of alcohol necessitates "joint and several liabilities," and knowingly selling does not matter in terms of negligence.
Tinsley argued that Mallory had asked to be let off the boat, which counteracts Parker's argument about knowing the risks.
He added that the store clerk did not do a sufficient check of the ID to match the picture with the juvenile standing in front of her.
Read More on The US Sun
It was claimed that there are "blanks in her personnel file" related to training for the role of a store clerk and that minutes before Paul, another juvenile managed to purchase alcohol from the same store.
According to Tinsley, the store clerk had failed to scan the minor's license and was unaware of policies including verifying height and weight against the ID and matching it with a credit card because Paul's purchase was over $45.
