Liquor Store Taking The Hit For Murdaugh’s Crimes
In a recent episode of the “Hidden Killers” podcast, host Tony Brueski discussed the latest developments in the scandal-ridden saga of Alex Murdaugh and his family with guest Neama Rahmani, a trial lawyer, civil and criminal litigator, and former federal prosecutor.
Rahmani and Brueski dove deep into the recent settlements concerning the tragic boat crash involving Alex Murdaugh’s son, Paul, and the untimely death of Mallory Beach. A highlight of the conversation was Parker’s convenience store’s settlement, which finds them accountable for selling alcohol to a minor, albeit unwittingly, given the use of a legitimate ID that showed the buyer to be over 21. The ID belonged to Paul’s older brother.
The settlement has led to Parker’s paying the Beach family between 15 to 20 million dollars – a significant sum that has sparked debate about the culpability of various parties involved in the case. Brueski and Rahmani questioned whether the major portion of this liability truly lies with Parker’s rather than the Murdoch family.
Rahmani, who has extensive experience in wrongful death cases, explained the complex factors influencing such legal outcomes. Given the questionable financial status of the Murdaugh family, their dwindling fortune, and a line of creditors, it might have been challenging for the plaintiffs to collect from them. Moreover, the legal theory of negligence would not necessarily directly implicate Alex Murdaugh, making the case against him less substantial.
Rahmani noted that each state’s liquor liability laws, known as “dram shop” laws, are different. South Carolina, where the incident occurred, doesn’t have stringent dram shop laws, thus placing less liability on liquor stores. However, despite these circumstances, considering the potential collectability issues, the Beach family’s considerable settlement signifies a favorable outcome for them.
Brueski questioned Rahmani about the degree of fault that truly rests with Parker’s. On the surface, it appeared that Parker’s performed their due diligence by checking ID before selling alcohol. The convenience store, however, was inadvertently caught in the web of this complex case, largely due to its ‘deep pockets’.
Rahmani acknowledged that Parker’s likely bore the least culpability compared to the other parties involved. Yet, they were implicated in the lawsuit due to their capacity to pay. The question remains about how much settlement they paid compared to the Murdaughs and their insurance company.
Brueski and Rahmani also discussed the repercussions of the settlement terms being disclosed despite an agreement to keep them confidential. Rahmani mentioned that the potential consequences depend on what the settlement agreement stipulates. Sometimes, there could be penalties for breaching confidentiality or grounds for rescinding the agreement. Given the high-profile nature of the case and the ensuing adverse publicity, Rahmani surmised that Parker’s was likely relieved to conclude the lawsuit despite violating the confidentiality clause.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Rahmani and Brueski dove deep into the recent settlements concerning the tragic boat crash involving Alex Murdaugh’s son, Paul, and the untimely death of Mallory Beach. A highlight of the conversation was Parker’s convenience store’s settlement, which finds them accountable for selling alcohol to a minor, albeit unwittingly, given the use of a legitimate ID that showed the buyer to be over 21. The ID belonged to Paul’s older brother.
The settlement has led to Parker’s paying the Beach family between 15 to 20 million dollars – a significant sum that has sparked debate about the culpability of various parties involved in the case. Brueski and Rahmani questioned whether the major portion of this liability truly lies with Parker’s rather than the Murdoch family.
Rahmani, who has extensive experience in wrongful death cases, explained the complex factors influencing such legal outcomes. Given the questionable financial status of the Murdaugh family, their dwindling fortune, and a line of creditors, it might have been challenging for the plaintiffs to collect from them. Moreover, the legal theory of negligence would not necessarily directly implicate Alex Murdaugh, making the case against him less substantial.
Rahmani noted that each state’s liquor liability laws, known as “dram shop” laws, are different. South Carolina, where the incident occurred, doesn’t have stringent dram shop laws, thus placing less liability on liquor stores. However, despite these circumstances, considering the potential collectability issues, the Beach family’s considerable settlement signifies a favorable outcome for them.
Brueski questioned Rahmani about the degree of fault that truly rests with Parker’s. On the surface, it appeared that Parker’s performed their due diligence by checking ID before selling alcohol. The convenience store, however, was inadvertently caught in the web of this complex case, largely due to its ‘deep pockets’.
Rahmani acknowledged that Parker’s likely bore the least culpability compared to the other parties involved. Yet, they were implicated in the lawsuit due to their capacity to pay. The question remains about how much settlement they paid compared to the Murdaughs and their insurance company.
Brueski and Rahmani also discussed the repercussions of the settlement terms being disclosed despite an agreement to keep them confidential. Rahmani mentioned that the potential consequences depend on what the settlement agreement stipulates. Sometimes, there could be penalties for breaching confidentiality or grounds for rescinding the agreement. Given the high-profile nature of the case and the ensuing adverse publicity, Rahmani surmised that Parker’s was likely relieved to conclude the lawsuit despite violating the confidentiality clause.
Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj
Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The latest on Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Justice for Harmony Montgomery, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
