Ypsilanti bar settles wrongful death lawsuit, agrees to pay family of crash victim $200,000
Editor's note: This story has been edited to clarify that Kelissa Bass will not receive funds from the settlement.
The owners of an Ypsilanti bar will pay $200,000 to the family of a man who was struck and killed by a customer who got behind the wheel after leaving the establishment in 2005.
Attorneys for the Sidetrack Bar and Grill and Kelissa Bass recently agreed to settle a wrongful death lawsuit following months of negotiations before Circuit Judge Donald Shelton. Bass’ brother, Kevin, 39, was struck by a vehicle driven by George Evan Feezel as Bass walked across Packard Road at about 2 a.m. on July 21, 2005. The Pittsfield Township man died at the scene.
Feezel was convicted of multiple felonies at trial in 2007. He was sentenced to seven to 30 years in prison. Kelissa Bass, acting as the agent for her brother's estate, filed civil suits against Feezel, the Sidetrack, and Ashley’s — another bar Feezel was reportedly at that night — on behalf of her three nieces.
Feezel’s parents, who owned the vehicle, settled for $250,000 in 2007, court records show. But proceedings regarding the bars stalled while Feezel appealed the convictions.
The Michigan Supreme Court granted Feezel, now 26, a second trial in July, and he opted to plead no contest to failing to stop at the scene of accident that resulted in a death. Circuit Judge Archie Brown sentenced him to a maximum five years in prison and credited him for more than four years already served. Prison records show he was paroled last month.
The suit claimed employees at the Sidetrack and Ashley’s served Feezel while he was visibly intoxicated. Ashley’s was dismissed from the suit after Bass’ attorneys couldn’t substantiate that Feezel was there after he left the Sidetrack, or was even there at all, said attorney Wayne Geik, who represented the Ann Arbor establishment.
The Sidetrack Bar and Grill will pay Kevin Bass' family $200,000 in a wrongful death lawsuit.
Art Aisner | For AnnArbor.com
Under Michigan law, only the last liquor license owner that served the defendant can be held liable in this type of case, Geik said.
Sidetrack owner Linda French said she was advised by attorneys and her insurers to approve the deal. She declined to elaborate and referred further questions to attorney Michael Ewing, who did not return several messages.
Thomas Lizza, Bass’ attorney, said she did not want to make any comment. Bass remains in Washtenaw County, as do her nieces, now 18, 16, and 12. Documents show that money from both settlements will be earmarked for higher education. Bass herself, will not receive money from the settlement.
“It’s a fair resolution,” said Lizza of the Southfield-based Fieger law firm. “It’s a tragic occurrence, but his daughters will be able to receive the benefit of that to go to college, and that’s very important to the family. It’s one positive out of a very negative situation.”
Art Aisner is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 734-623-2530.
Comments
Wolf's Bane
Fri, Feb 25, 2011 : 1:45 p.m.
Next, the nieces should go after the vehicle manufacturer, the maker of the beer and liquor, the drinking glass manufacturer...
Wolf's Bane
Fri, Feb 25, 2011 : 1:38 p.m.
Linda French and the entire Sidetrack staff have always been very clear about cutting customers off who have had too much drink or pose a danger to others; such as being belligerent or argumentative, and too loud. I have witnessed this on countless occasions and folks are always dealt swiftly and professionally. This settlement reeks and I think it does nothing for the Sidetrack to give in to bully attorneys. Whatever happened to personal responsibility?
Kelissa
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 6:01 p.m.
Please stop commenting about a story you know nothing about. I never filed a lawsuti my mother did before she died in 2007, and he was convicted because he was intoxicated and he lied on the stand with his ex girlfriend and the person at the bar testified while they tried to cover up a clear vehicular manslaughter crime just because they have money and when you have money you can get away with what you please. As you will notice he was not convicted just for this crime he was convicted for mulitple crimes which means he was already committing several crimes before this one. He needed to sit down for a while he was spoiled and out of control and whatever he got into his parents paid and made it alright. The county convicted him because he was guilty. And if you want my feelings on the case my brother's daughters still lost the most the attorneys and his family benefited the most. It doesnt matter who you are black or white if you are hit by a vehicle the law says for you to stop period. NOT FLEE THE SCENE AND TRY TO COVER UP THE CRIME ALONG WITH YOU PARENTS. If this had of happened the other way around Im sure there would have been a total different outcome.
jns131
Fri, Dec 24, 2010 : 12:49 p.m.
This is why it is so hard to get a liquor license. They are expensive, they come with lawsuits if you serve, you don't control your customers, you will be sued. I am so glad to see this article to remind bars and restaurants to think and serve responsible.
jondhall
Fri, Dec 24, 2010 : 9:19 a.m.
Wrong answers! The attorneys created this mess! What did William Shakespeare say? No matter what side they are on they are all scum.
Wolf's Bane
Fri, Feb 25, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.
Ain't that the truth. Amen!
fensk
Fri, Dec 24, 2010 : 9:07 a.m.
Average Joe, you sum it up pretty well. Linda French...Sidetrack, I am sorry you are a victim of our greedy society.
average joe
Fri, Dec 24, 2010 : 8:39 a.m.
Just my two cents- How can one prove that this tragic accident would NOT have happened if only the sidetrack had not served this man two beers in two hours time. Are they the only one's to blame here? What about the people who served/sold liquor to the victim, who was the only person legally drunk involved in this accident? And who sold Feezel the pot? Shouldn't we go after them?......... Gee, maybe I'm partly to blame here, as I patronize the sidetrack, and therefore help keep the French's in business. After all, if the sidetrack wasn't there, then this accident wouldn't have happened, correct?? If the victim, who was walking in the middle of the road @ 2am, was not struck by Feezel, but was hit by the next vehicle which was being driven by a person who had not been drinking, who is at fault then?? (Another victory for a Fieger attorney) So much for personal responsibility.
Kelissa
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 6:11 p.m.
You are so wrong, 1 my brother was hit by the vehicle Feezel was driving, the vehicle that his ex girlfriend was driving while he chased her heading to a party at the Eastern Campus is the one that seen my brother and witnessed him getting hit. They all conversated at the Marathon Gas station on Washtenaw and Golfside and ploted the cover up. Thank goodness for another witness who happened to hear his dogs barking and looked out of the window to see Feezel in his driveway trying to fix his hood. There is alot to this story that the news will not tell you but your comment had some information that was true but alot was not, just wanted to clarify since I actually sat through the trial.
RJA
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 10:02 p.m.
Never worked in a bar, do drive, don't drink, have good insurance, no one drives my car unless named on my policy. No further comment.
M.
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 9:21 p.m.
I know a lot of people here think it's wrong to sue the bar because the driver is ultimately responsible, but in most cases it is the only way to get restitution and take care of expenses left by the accident. A friend of mine had a similar thing happen to her husband, but the driver of the other car could not pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses including LifeFlight to UM and physical therapy...in order to take care of the bills from the accident they had to sue the bar that served the driver.
andys
Fri, Feb 25, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.
Does "fault" not come into play in attempting to get "resolution"? If not I hope its you they sue next time someone needs "resolution" to "take care of expenses".
Wolf's Bane
Fri, Feb 25, 2011 : 1:42 p.m.
You make it sound like no matter who is really at fault, somebody or something, like a corporation has to pay for the event. I totally disagree. I think we've become too comfortable with passing the buck and it stinks.
johnnya2
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 7:36 p.m.
There are a lot of issues here, so i will tackle them one by one: 1. Owners of vehicle- Any person who uses anothers vehicle is responsible for ANYTHING that happens with the vehicle. If you let your car get used in a crime, YOU are responsible. The main reason people insure and register a car in their name instead of their kids is PRECISELY for this reason. They tried to save money. If they wanted their son to have a car, put it in his name and let him insure it himself. The rate would be MUCH higher, and there would be ZERO liability. 2. The bar can only be held responsible if a person appears too be drunk. This is where bars need to have their employees trained in all aspects of alcohol management. Even if a person is walking a bar CAN NOT serve a person who is intoxicated. If this guy had two drinks in two hours, as Linda French says, then they should not be held responsible. BUT, how many bars serve people 8-10 drinks in an hour and hope like hell the guy isn't driving. That is where you accept partial responsibility for anything the customer does.
Kelissa
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 6:02 p.m.
Im the sister and I totally agree with your comment
Cash
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 6:56 p.m.
Also the owner of the vehicle can be sued in Michigan whether they had a clue or not that the person was going to drink and drive.... but not in some other states. In Missouri for instance, the owner of the vehicle must be aware that the person was drinking or for some other reason not fit to drive in order to be liable. That makes more sense to me. Lawyers make a fortune off of this crap.
Roadman
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 5:47 p.m.
@Paul R.: The test of liability of a bar under the Dram Shop Act is whether a person was served alcohol by a bar employee while visibly intoxicated. If this was done, then personal injury proximately caused as a result of this service of alcohol is the bar's responsibility. A bar employee is expected to know when a person is to be "cut off."
Kelissa
Sat, Sep 24, 2011 : 6:04 p.m.
this comment is true and he was served several drinks by an employee who testified while hes was visibly intoxicated.
trs80
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 5:47 p.m.
Very sad story and even worse ending. Side note: The constant threat of lawsuits and the fact that people in the US sue anyone and everyone because their feelings got hurt is why the rest of the world laughs at us. Americans are the blunt of every greed joke.
kraiford12
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 4:28 p.m.
I really don't see why the bar is responsible for his reckless actions. At what point is the bar not responsible? What if he sat outside for an hour then got into his car, are they still responsible? What if he lived around the block, walked home, sat down for 5min, got back into his car and then hit someone; are they still responsible? I can see the need for bars to cut people off if they appear to have had to many drinks, but how can someone reasonably tell if someone is safe to drive? Or if they plan on driving at all? The state pushes billboard/media campaigns saying "Buzzed driving is drunk driving". So should bars cut people off after 1 beer because they could be buzzed and the state promotes that as being drunk? Some people do extremely well at hiding the fact that they are drunk. Some people never get to the point of belligerence that would be detectable to others. Main point being, responsibility of the establishment should not extent to situations in which a patron takes actions beyond the scope of what the bar has control over. If someone is throwing up or acting "Crazy" then yes... cut them off. I can see why a bar could be held responsible for alcohol poisoning. Bar's are not our parents, they are not our caretakers. People make choices to go there and drink, perhaps to much. People also make the choice to leave the bar and drive, the bar did not make that choice for you.
Bluefire
Fri, Feb 25, 2011 : 9:56 p.m.
Many of these questions are the kinds of inquiries that would be addressed during a trial, but there was no trial. The bar settled the case. I am not privy to the terms of the agreement but, presumably, the bar settled without admitting liability. So, yes, they have been held responsible for the accident in the sense that their insurance company paid the settlement. They may have been "cleared" had the case gone to trial -- but it would have cost A LOT more than $200,000 to do that. And, by the way, being financially covered by an insurance policy for such a situation is exactly WHY people have insurance.
ffej440
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 4:24 p.m.
Before you post you REALLY must read the link to the past article. Seems to me we shouldn't be a no fault state if you can be sued anyway. In this case I think no money should be awarded.
treetowncartel
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 4:02 p.m.
@ Shadowmanager, I couldn't agree with your comment more. Plus, the man was sober at some point before "he" decided to imbibe. Liberty is not free, the price you have to pay is personal responsibility.
b_ketch
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.
Both the driver AND vehicle owner can be sued - the driver for the damage they cause, and the vehicle owner for letting someone use their vehicle that caused the damage. It's possible the situation could have been avoided if the parents didn't let him drive their auto that night - that's the risk you take when you let someone borrow your vehicle.
Greggy_D
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 3:10 p.m.
Personal responsibility is dead.
Macabre Sunset
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 3:02 p.m.
Because we live in a society where there's no such thing as personal responsibility. And we all pay more for insurance, and for drinks at a bar, and for millions of other products as a result.
Charles
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 2:49 p.m.
From the facts presented in the two story's, I fall to see why the Bass family is in titled to any money from Sidetrack.
ShadowManager
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.
The nanny-state strikes back. This wasn't the fault of the Sidetrack...it was the fault of Mr. Feezel. Ah well, guess I'll have to bu a drink or two...but not in a row...to help Sidetrack defray these outrageous costs for Mr. Feezel's idiocy.
Charles
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 2:35 p.m.
So let me get this right. This Feezel guy had two beers at the bar, drove home and hit a drunk guy wondering in the road (Bass)then drove away, but returned and was given 30 years and was sued by the Bass family for $250000? Feezel's crime was haveing had smoked pot at some point in the past (but it was still in his system), and hitting a drunk man wondering on a dark road?
Paul
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 2:26 p.m.
I get it! That's why I pay so much insurance.
Linda
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 2:08 p.m.
The driver involved in the accident was found within the legal limits of intoxication at the scene of the accident. He was also found not guilty of drunk driving by a jury in Washtenaw county. He was served 2 beers in 2 hours at the Sidtrack. The insurance company settled this suit.
Paul
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 2:06 p.m.
Maybe the cab drop him off at somebody else house. He then robbed them now the cab company is responsible. Be cause they dropped the drunk guy off at somebody else house.
Atticus F.
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 1:58 p.m.
How did the patron get into his house after the bartender took his keys?
pvitaly
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 1:55 p.m.
Paul, I have been at a bar where the bartender took the patron's car keys away. Even though the patron said they weren't driving, the bartender took the keys and call them a cab. Bartender waited until the cab arrived and made sure that the cab took that person home. That's how it needs to be done.
Bob Needham
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 1:53 p.m.
(Comment removed due to a personal attack)
Paul
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 1:48 p.m.
@Mike as far as the bar knew he could of took a cab had a ride. If that's the case you shouldn't be allowed to go into a liquor store and by multiple bottles of liquor, cause they should automatically assume you have bad intentions of getting loopie?
mike
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 1:37 p.m.
@ Paul R. The bar is responsible because they have the power to stop servivg the customers drinks when they are too loopie.
Paul
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 1:26 p.m.
I don't see why the bar is responsible!
Rob Pollard
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 12:50 p.m.
Ahhh...my mistake. Thx for pointing it out. Do you know what "earmarked" means? Is that similar to a trust, which requires a specific usage, or does it simply mean the money is intended to be used for something, but they have no legal obligation to do so? In any event, it's terrible that these kids lost a father. Glad the drunk driver went to jail, but not sure why a guy was walking down the middle of an unlit road, late at night, when it was pouring rain out. I know he was really drunk, but still.
a2gretta
Tue, Oct 16, 2012 : 1:11 p.m.
This story says nothing about the man who was hit being drunk, only that the driver of the car that hit him was intoxicated. Were there two incapacitated people wandering in the dark, one propelling a lethal weapon?
loki
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 12:17 p.m.
@Rob Pollard - try reading the story again. Kelissa Bass is the sister of the man (Kevin) who was killed. She is filing suit on behalf of her nieces aka his daughters, who are now 18, 16, and 12. Likely are not named in the article due to their age.
Rob Pollard
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 12:04 p.m.
I don't get this part of the story. It says Kelissa Bass (the guy who was killed sister) filed the suit. It says, "Bass remains in Washtenaw County, as do her nieces, now 18, 16, and 12" and that the funds will be "earmarked" (does that mean held in a trust?) for higher education. But then the lawyer says, "Its a fair resolution, said Lizza of the Southfield-based Fieger law firm. Its a tragic occurrence, but his daughters will be able to receive the benefit of that to go to college." Who are "his" daughters? None are mentioned. Should that say nieces? Was he supporting them?
Jim Mulchay
Thu, Dec 23, 2010 : 12:01 p.m.
The article mentions that the vehicle driver was granted a new trial. Would it be possible to explain why a new trial was granted?