[cardcrimson]

Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.

That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint.  Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.  

Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct  website.  It will guide you to the online portal.  You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.

I read it cover to cover, but didn't see much that wasn't already in the news reports. Can you highlight what you have in mind? At worst it seemed like they alleged the fellow students conceiled the drug use from emergency responders, and the Residence Dean referred the matter to the on-call dean. But all of that happened two nights before he actually overdosed, and the night of that incident, the complaint seems to be totally silent about anyone else's involvement (presumably because there wasn't any). What am I missing?

1.  Stanford had notice of an on campus drug issues
2. Stanford had notice the issue was particularly acute within the Greek  system 
3 Stanford had notice  that the frat in question had major issues for years but failed to take action
4 Stanford had notice of the Santa Clara County warning on counterfeit Percocet laced with Fetyanal and the devastating impact as a result.
5 Stanford had notice of the potential overdose two days earlier.


Yet Stanford took no action and violated its own policies in doing so.



Don’t know if any is true. But the issue is notice and inaction.

Naive question, but why is it Stanford's responsibility at all. The student was an adult, correct?

There have been drugs at Stanford for years, including a fairly large bust in 82 or 83 that cut supplies to some of my friends, both in and out of the greek system (not that I was waiting on the supply).

[cardcrimson]

Is there a link to the actual complaint? I only saw it summarized in the article linked above. Not sure that Stanford has any responsibility to tell students about the possible impurities in illegal drugs in the area.

That isn’t actually the gravamen of the complaint.  Newspaper summaries of legal actions and/or decisions never tell you much.  

Go to the Santa Clara County Sup Ct  website.  It will guide you to the online portal.  You put in the parents name in the search and you will find the complaint.

I read it cover to cover, but didn't see much that wasn't already in the news reports. Can you highlight what you have in mind? At worst it seemed like they alleged the fellow students conceiled the drug use from emergency responders, and the Residence Dean referred the matter to the on-call dean. But all of that happened two nights before he actually overdosed, and the night of that incident, the complaint seems to be totally silent about anyone else's involvement (presumably because there wasn't any). What am I missing?

1.  Stanford had notice of an on campus drug issues
2. Stanford had notice the issue was particularly acute within the Greek  system 
3 Stanford had notice  that the frat in question had major issues for years but failed to take action
4 Stanford had notice of the Santa Clara County warning on counterfeit Percocet laced with Fetyanal and the devastating impact as a result.
5 Stanford had notice of the potential overdose two days earlier.


Yet Stanford took no action and violated its own policies in doing so.



Don’t know if any is true. But the issue is notice and inaction.

Naive question, but why is it Stanford's responsibility at all. The student was an adult, correct?

There have been drugs at Stanford for years, including a fairly large bust in 82 or 83 that cut supplies to some of my friends, both in and out of the greek system (not that I was waiting on the supply).

[fullmetal]

what jumps out to me is that a student r a asked for assistance from a faculty r d, who punted the issue rather than make sure any responsible adult evaluated the student (and presumably called for medical assistance). if i am reading correctly, the earlier situation called for a medical evaluation, but no one insisted on that eval. an unresponsive individual is a danger to himself and, by statute, cannot refuse medical evaluation.

^This definitely deserves investigation and further elaboration.

[fullmetal]

what jumps out to me is that a student r a asked for assistance from a faculty r d, who punted the issue rather than make sure any responsible adult evaluated the student (and presumably called for medical assistance). if i am reading correctly, the earlier situation called for a medical evaluation, but no one insisted on that eval. an unresponsive individual is a danger to himself and, by statute, cannot refuse medical evaluation.

^This definitely deserves investigation and further elaboration.

[82lsju]

Stanford University earlier this month filed its response to the wrongful death suit brought by the Los Altos family of Eitan Weiner, the 19-year-old sophomore who fatally overdosed on campus in 2020.

Lawyers for Stanford argue that the university bears no responsibility for Weiner’s death. Instead, they allege that Weiner, his parents Julia Erwin-Weiner and Amir Weiner and friend and former Los Altos High classmate Matthew Ming Carpenter are culpable.

https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/stan...041db.html

[82lsju]

Stanford University earlier this month filed its response to the wrongful death suit brought by the Los Altos family of Eitan Weiner, the 19-year-old sophomore who fatally overdosed on campus in 2020.

Lawyers for Stanford argue that the university bears no responsibility for Weiner’s death. Instead, they allege that Weiner, his parents Julia Erwin-Weiner and Amir Weiner and friend and former Los Altos High classmate Matthew Ming Carpenter are culpable.

https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/stan...041db.html

[newguy]

Stanford University earlier this month filed its response to the wrongful death suit brought by the Los Altos family of Eitan Weiner, the 19-year-old sophomore who fatally overdosed on campus in 2020.

Lawyers for Stanford argue that the university bears no responsibility for Weiner’s death. Instead, they allege that Weiner, his parents Julia Erwin-Weiner and Amir Weiner and friend and former Los Altos High classmate Matthew Ming Carpenter are culpable.

https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/stan...041db.html

in my opinion, Stanford should not be held liable for Weiner's Death.

[newguy]

Stanford University earlier this month filed its response to the wrongful death suit brought by the Los Altos family of Eitan Weiner, the 19-year-old sophomore who fatally overdosed on campus in 2020.

Lawyers for Stanford argue that the university bears no responsibility for Weiner’s death. Instead, they allege that Weiner, his parents Julia Erwin-Weiner and Amir Weiner and friend and former Los Altos High classmate Matthew Ming Carpenter are culpable.

https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/stan...041db.html

in my opinion, Stanford should not be held liable for Weiner's Death.

[lex24]

Stanford University earlier this month filed its response to the wrongful death suit brought by the Los Altos family of Eitan Weiner, the 19-year-old sophomore who fatally overdosed on campus in 2020.

Lawyers for Stanford argue that the university bears no responsibility for Weiner’s death. Instead, they allege that Weiner, his parents Julia Erwin-Weiner and Amir Weiner and friend and former Los Altos High classmate Matthew Ming Carpenter are culpable.

https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/stan...041db.html

in my opinion, Stanford should not be held liable for Weiner's Death.

Notice will be the issue.  If the University was on notice and did nothing, they could be found liable.

Wrongful death cases are often aimed at parties other than those that are the most directly culpable.  For example, parking lots.  Someone is murdered in the lot.  Turns out the lot is in a high crime area, it’s night, lights are poor. And the garage has had other crimes committed in it.  The owner gets sued.

Slightly different, but same general theory.

[lex24]

Stanford University earlier this month filed its response to the wrongful death suit brought by the Los Altos family of Eitan Weiner, the 19-year-old sophomore who fatally overdosed on campus in 2020.

Lawyers for Stanford argue that the university bears no responsibility for Weiner’s death. Instead, they allege that Weiner, his parents Julia Erwin-Weiner and Amir Weiner and friend and former Los Altos High classmate Matthew Ming Carpenter are culpable.

https://www.losaltosonline.com/news/stan...041db.html

in my opinion, Stanford should not be held liable for Weiner's Death.

Notice will be the issue.  If the University was on notice and did nothing, they could be found liable.

Wrongful death cases are often aimed at parties other than those that are the most directly culpable.  For example, parking lots.  Someone is murdered in the lot.  Turns out the lot is in a high crime area, it’s night, lights are poor. And the garage has had other crimes committed in it.  The owner gets sued.

Slightly different, but same general theory.

[martyup]

Missing the element of duty IMO.

[martyup]

Missing the element of duty IMO.

[82 Card]

This isn't Mississippi, the only remaining state where the age of majority is still 21. California lowered the age of majority to 18 in 1972. The reduction in the age of majority relieved universities of in loco parentis responsibility, which applies to minors. There can still be liability if the plaintiffs can show that there was some unreasonably dangerous condition that was within the universities responsibility to control. But the duty of care is much lower than with a minor.

[82 Card]

This isn't Mississippi, the only remaining state where the age of majority is still 21. California lowered the age of majority to 18 in 1972. The reduction in the age of majority relieved universities of in loco parentis responsibility, which applies to minors. There can still be liability if the plaintiffs can show that there was some unreasonably dangerous condition that was within the universities responsibility to control. But the duty of care is much lower than with a minor.

[dabigv13]

Not a lawyer, but then does the University have different duties of care to 17 year old students than 18 year old ones? Interesting. 

In any case as I previously mentioned in this thread, the complaint was rife with internal contradictions. I presume they are just trying to get as much settlement as possible.

[dabigv13]

Not a lawyer, but then does the University have different duties of care to 17 year old students than 18 year old ones? Interesting. 

In any case as I previously mentioned in this thread, the complaint was rife with internal contradictions. I presume they are just trying to get as much settlement as possible.

[jonnyss]

in my experience, tragedies like this happen when multiple parties drop the ball. in this case:

if the parents knew he had od'd (did they?) they should have done more.
the student should have admitted what was going on and sought help.
his friends should have pushed him to get help and pushed the university to assist.
the paramedics should have noticed his pinpoint pupils and put him on a hold as a danger to himself.
the r a likely knew about drug use at the frat and should have told the paramedic. if the r a was not trained to look for pinpoint pupils, she should have been. if she was trained, she should have noticed and told the paramedics.
the r d should have followed up
the frat brothers should have taken care not to push doctored pills and also to inform the paramedic
the fraternity knew about the drug use and should have sought help
the university had been warned about adulterated pills and should have done way more to publicize the danger. the university should also assign someone to follow-up after a life-threatening emergency. calling 911 is a start but in no way sufficient.

skillful action by any of these would likely have averted the tragedy.

[jonnyss]

in my experience, tragedies like this happen when multiple parties drop the ball. in this case:

if the parents knew he had od'd (did they?) they should have done more.
the student should have admitted what was going on and sought help.
his friends should have pushed him to get help and pushed the university to assist.
the paramedics should have noticed his pinpoint pupils and put him on a hold as a danger to himself.
the r a likely knew about drug use at the frat and should have told the paramedic. if the r a was not trained to look for pinpoint pupils, she should have been. if she was trained, she should have noticed and told the paramedics.
the r d should have followed up
the frat brothers should have taken care not to push doctored pills and also to inform the paramedic
the fraternity knew about the drug use and should have sought help
the university had been warned about adulterated pills and should have done way more to publicize the danger. the university should also assign someone to follow-up after a life-threatening emergency. calling 911 is a start but in no way sufficient.

skillful action by any of these would likely have averted the tragedy.

[dabigv13]

the university had been warned about adulterated pills and should have done way more to publicize the danger. 

How was Stanford warned about this? From what I read from the complaint, a local DA had made an announcement to the community. That is not any specific warning to Stanford. I can't imagine it's any university's duty to monitor all press releases from local law enforcement and pass that on to the students.

Stanford has a duty to tell students that illegal drugs they order through the mail may be altered with other illegal drugs? Really?

[dabigv13]

the university had been warned about adulterated pills and should have done way more to publicize the danger. 

How was Stanford warned about this? From what I read from the complaint, a local DA had made an announcement to the community. That is not any specific warning to Stanford. I can't imagine it's any university's duty to monitor all press releases from local law enforcement and pass that on to the students.

Stanford has a duty to tell students that illegal drugs they order through the mail may be altered with other illegal drugs? Really?

[Softball Fan]

There may be no similarities to this.  A WVB player brought a lawsuit against Stanford over four years ago claiming the coaching staff should have diagnosed a concussion and taken the necessary protocol.  I suspect the attorneys expected a quick settlement from Stanford to avoid negative publicity.  Well it's four years later, the case has still not gotten to a jury, and the WVB player has gone through three sets of lawyers.  Stanford is clearly playing hardball and has zero intention of settling.  

From the news article linked on this thread:

"In its filing, Stanford’s legal team also repeatedly references Weiner’s history of drug use, and his parents’ knowledge of that history generally."

The frat student's lawsuit brought by his parents may be more difficult to reach a settlement than their attorneys' anticipate.   My uneducated opinion is Stanford in general does not want to set the precedent of settling whenever something happens to a student.

[Softball Fan]

There may be no similarities to this.  A WVB player brought a lawsuit against Stanford over four years ago claiming the coaching staff should have diagnosed a concussion and taken the necessary protocol.  I suspect the attorneys expected a quick settlement from Stanford to avoid negative publicity.  Well it's four years later, the case has still not gotten to a jury, and the WVB player has gone through three sets of lawyers.  Stanford is clearly playing hardball and has zero intention of settling.  

From the news article linked on this thread:

"In its filing, Stanford’s legal team also repeatedly references Weiner’s history of drug use, and his parents’ knowledge of that history generally."

The frat student's lawsuit brought by his parents may be more difficult to reach a settlement than their attorneys' anticipate.   My uneducated opinion is Stanford in general does not want to set the precedent of settling whenever something happens to a student.

[jonnyss]

the university had been warned about adulterated pills and should have done way more to publicize the danger. 

How was Stanford warned about this? From what I read from the complaint, a local DA had made an announcement to the community. That is not any specific warning to Stanford. I can't imagine it's any university's duty to monitor all press releases from local law enforcement and pass that on to the students.

Stanford has a duty to tell students that illegal drugs they order through the mail may be altered with other illegal drugs? Really?

the legal is not the only duty. there are moral responsibilities, and vaden has professional medical responsibilities. 

yes, in general, imo a university has a moral and medical professional duty to warn the community of imminent public health risks: every few years there are, for example, cases of infectious meningitis. i don't know about legally, but professionally and morally they have to warn the community, and generally they do.

if stanford gets cases of monkeypox, they will warn the university community. if they don't, look out...

[jonnyss]

the university had been warned about adulterated pills and should have done way more to publicize the danger. 

How was Stanford warned about this? From what I read from the complaint, a local DA had made an announcement to the community. That is not any specific warning to Stanford. I can't imagine it's any university's duty to monitor all press releases from local law enforcement and pass that on to the students.

Stanford has a duty to tell students that illegal drugs they order through the mail may be altered with other illegal drugs? Really?

the legal is not the only duty. there are moral responsibilities, and vaden has professional medical responsibilities. 

yes, in general, imo a university has a moral and medical professional duty to warn the community of imminent public health risks: every few years there are, for example, cases of infectious meningitis. i don't know about legally, but professionally and morally they have to warn the community, and generally they do.

if stanford gets cases of monkeypox, they will warn the university community. if they don't, look out...

[dabigv13]

Not seeing how those examples are analogous. Meningitis in dorm environments is a known problem. No evidence has been presented that Stanford knew of any widespread problem of students using adulterated percocet, or that the DA had told them directly there was a problem at Stanford.

Does Stanford have to tell students not to drive over the speed limit? Not to shoot people? How does safe consumption of illegal drugs fit anywhere into a university's remit?

[dabigv13]

Not seeing how those examples are analogous. Meningitis in dorm environments is a known problem. No evidence has been presented that Stanford knew of any widespread problem of students using adulterated percocet, or that the DA had told them directly there was a problem at Stanford.

Does Stanford have to tell students not to drive over the speed limit? Not to shoot people? How does safe consumption of illegal drugs fit anywhere into a university's remit?

[jonnyss]

Not seeing how those examples are analogous. Meningitis in dorm environments is a known problem. No evidence has been presented that Stanford knew of any widespread problem of students using adulterated percocet, or that the DA had told them directly there was a problem at Stanford.

Does Stanford have to tell students not to drive over the speed limit? Not to shoot people? How does safe consumption of illegal drugs fit anywhere into a university's remit?

percocet is not an illegal drug. as you note, the problem occurred from adulteration/contamination of a legal drug (obtained recreationally). of course schools warn of local public health problems - like salmonella outbreaks in local restaurants.

yes, stanford was warned. you are splitting hairs to say stanford was only warned as one school among many. here is the warning the santa clara county health department sent to all schools. it asks the schools to have narcan available and to educate responsible parties in the school about the prevalence of pills adulterated with fentanyl, and about signs of opiate overdose (which eitan weiner had). this warning speaks to an urgent, specific public health problem - not to the general problem of recreational drug use.

link

3 months after this health advisory, after weiner suffered his first obvious opiate overdose, would you say stanford/vaden had no moral responsibility to hold an urgent meeting with the fraternity to discuss fentanyl prevalence and dangers? maybe the law doesn't require it, but such an obvious, sensible intervention would likely have saved a life.

i think of how any of number of people could easily have prevented a death. you assert stanford wasn't legally required to save him. i guess i think like a doctor and you think like a lawyer.

[jonnyss]

Not seeing how those examples are analogous. Meningitis in dorm environments is a known problem. No evidence has been presented that Stanford knew of any widespread problem of students using adulterated percocet, or that the DA had told them directly there was a problem at Stanford.

Does Stanford have to tell students not to drive over the speed limit? Not to shoot people? How does safe consumption of illegal drugs fit anywhere into a university's remit?

percocet is not an illegal drug. as you note, the problem occurred from adulteration/contamination of a legal drug (obtained recreationally). of course schools warn of local public health problems - like salmonella outbreaks in local restaurants.

yes, stanford was warned. you are splitting hairs to say stanford was only warned as one school among many. here is the warning the santa clara county health department sent to all schools. it asks the schools to have narcan available and to educate responsible parties in the school about the prevalence of pills adulterated with fentanyl, and about signs of opiate overdose (which eitan weiner had). this warning speaks to an urgent, specific public health problem - not to the general problem of recreational drug use.

link

3 months after this health advisory, after weiner suffered his first obvious opiate overdose, would you say stanford/vaden had no moral responsibility to hold an urgent meeting with the fraternity to discuss fentanyl prevalence and dangers? maybe the law doesn't require it, but such an obvious, sensible intervention would likely have saved a life.

i think of how any of number of people could easily have prevented a death. you assert stanford wasn't legally required to save him. i guess i think like a doctor and you think like a lawyer.

[dabigv13]

From the plaintiff's complaint it's not clear that the first incident would have been recognized as an obvious opiate overdose, and that evidence it may have been was hidden by other private parties involved.

if so, i guess i think like a doctor and you think like a lawyer.

As a doctor I find sometimes you have to think like a lawyer as well, but in this situation I think it mostly comes down to personal responsibility.

[dabigv13]

From the plaintiff's complaint it's not clear that the first incident would have been recognized as an obvious opiate overdose, and that evidence it may have been was hidden by other private parties involved.

if so, i guess i think like a doctor and you think like a lawyer.

As a doctor I find sometimes you have to think like a lawyer as well, but in this situation I think it mostly comes down to personal responsibility.

[FarmTeam]

Not seeing how those examples are analogous. Meningitis in dorm environments is a known problem. No evidence has been presented that Stanford knew of any widespread problem of students using adulterated percocet, or that the DA had told them directly there was a problem at Stanford.

Does Stanford have to tell students not to drive over the speed limit? Not to shoot people? How does safe consumption of illegal drugs fit anywhere into a university's remit?

here is the warning the santa clara county health department sent to all schools. it asks the schools to have narcan available and to educate responsible parties in the school about the prevalence of pills adulterated with fentanyl, and about signs of opiate overdose (which eitan weiner had). this warning speaks to an urgent, specific public health problem - not to the general problem of illicit drug use.

link

3 months after this health advisory, after weiner suffered his first obvious opiate overdose, would you say stanford/vaden had no moral responsibility to hold an urgent meeting with the fraternity to discuss fentanyl prevalence and dangers? maybe the law doesn't require it, but such an obvious, sensible intervention would likely have saved a life.

if so, i guess i think like a doctor and you think like a lawyer.

Hell no. Give me a break. "Hey, legal adults, don't overdose on illegal drugs." SMH. 

And it's shameful that the parents are pointing fingers in every direction but at their kid and at themselves (like they didn't know...please. I'll say it like a lawyer: if they didn't know, they should have known). Any sympathy that I had for them is long gone with this ridiculous claim.

[FarmTeam]

Not seeing how those examples are analogous. Meningitis in dorm environments is a known problem. No evidence has been presented that Stanford knew of any widespread problem of students using adulterated percocet, or that the DA had told them directly there was a problem at Stanford.

Does Stanford have to tell students not to drive over the speed limit? Not to shoot people? How does safe consumption of illegal drugs fit anywhere into a university's remit?

here is the warning the santa clara county health department sent to all schools. it asks the schools to have narcan available and to educate responsible parties in the school about the prevalence of pills adulterated with fentanyl, and about signs of opiate overdose (which eitan weiner had). this warning speaks to an urgent, specific public health problem - not to the general problem of illicit drug use.

link

3 months after this health advisory, after weiner suffered his first obvious opiate overdose, would you say stanford/vaden had no moral responsibility to hold an urgent meeting with the fraternity to discuss fentanyl prevalence and dangers? maybe the law doesn't require it, but such an obvious, sensible intervention would likely have saved a life.

if so, i guess i think like a doctor and you think like a lawyer.

Hell no. Give me a break. "Hey, legal adults, don't overdose on illegal drugs." SMH. 

And it's shameful that the parents are pointing fingers in every direction but at their kid and at themselves (like they didn't know...please. I'll say it like a lawyer: if they didn't know, they should have known). Any sympathy that I had for them is long gone with this ridiculous claim.

[jonnyss]

From the plaintiff's complaint it's not clear that the first incident would have been recognized as an obvious opiate overdose, and that evidence it may have been was hidden by other private parties involved.

if so, i guess i think like a doctor and you think like a lawyer.

As a doctor I find sometimes you have to think like a lawyer as well, but in this situation I think it mostly comes down to personal responsibility.

(unlike, for example, katie meyer) this death was not a surprise. it was completely preventable. as i wrote above, any of eitan, his parents, his friends, the fraternity, the r a, the just-call-911 r d, the paramedics, vaden, stanford could have prevented this tragedy. i believe we all, when involved, would do well to think about what we could have done differently. yes, eitan; yes, the parents; but not just them. everybody involved could have and should have done more to help.

if, by "personal responsibility." you are saying the drug and alcohol dependent deserve their misfortune, i disagree. alcohol and drug treatment don't always work but they have saved millions of lives. and more often than not, the individual has to be pushed to enter treatment.

if this was a fentanyl overdose, he would have had pinpoint pupils. this is not subtle. it's readily visible and really obvious from 5' away. stanford should have sent the sc county health dept warning (and a supply of narcan) to all r d's. following the instructions in the warning, the r a should have been trained to look for pinpoint pupils in an unresponsive student. if the r d didn't want to get off his ass and personally evaluate an unresponsive student, he should have asked the r a. to check pupils. the paramedics should have looked for and seen this within 5 seconds (unless they arrived 3 hours late).

[jonnyss]

From the plaintiff's complaint it's not clear that the first incident would have been recognized as an obvious opiate overdose, and that evidence it may have been was hidden by other private parties involved.

if so, i guess i think like a doctor and you think like a lawyer.

As a doctor I find sometimes you have to think like a lawyer as well, but in this situation I think it mostly comes down to personal responsibility.

(unlike, for example, katie meyer) this death was not a surprise. it was completely preventable. as i wrote above, any of eitan, his parents, his friends, the fraternity, the r a, the just-call-911 r d, the paramedics, vaden, stanford could have prevented this tragedy. i believe we all, when involved, would do well to think about what we could have done differently. yes, eitan; yes, the parents; but not just them. everybody involved could have and should have done more to help.

if, by "personal responsibility." you are saying the drug and alcohol dependent deserve their misfortune, i disagree. alcohol and drug treatment don't always work but they have saved millions of lives. and more often than not, the individual has to be pushed to enter treatment.

if this was a fentanyl overdose, he would have had pinpoint pupils. this is not subtle. it's readily visible and really obvious from 5' away. stanford should have sent the sc county health dept warning (and a supply of narcan) to all r d's. following the instructions in the warning, the r a should have been trained to look for pinpoint pupils in an unresponsive student. if the r d didn't want to get off his ass and personally evaluate an unresponsive student, he should have asked the r a. to check pupils. the paramedics should have looked for and seen this within 5 seconds (unless they arrived 3 hours late).

[dabigv13]

I'm not saying the drug and alcohol dependent deserve their misfortune. And I hope that this event has spurred training and raised awareness that will save other lives.

What I am saying is that Stanford should not be paying money to his parents, though they certainly have my sympathy. It's a very sad situation, drug and alcohol dependence is extremely tough for families (as I have seen up close from family and friends). And from my personal anecdotal experience, sustained remission happens only when the addict takes personal responsibility.

[dabigv13]

I'm not saying the drug and alcohol dependent deserve their misfortune. And I hope that this event has spurred training and raised awareness that will save other lives.

What I am saying is that Stanford should not be paying money to his parents, though they certainly have my sympathy. It's a very sad situation, drug and alcohol dependence is extremely tough for families (as I have seen up close from family and friends). And from my personal anecdotal experience, sustained remission happens only when the addict takes personal responsibility.

[StanfordIndians1.]

So parents are suing Stanford;  the fraternity; The best friend who sold it to him;  even some the ex room mates;  Should they include the janitor that found him?

Can Stanford Counter sue the parents? (who are currently working at Stanford and the Stanford Med a Center).  No way they didn’t know Grier kid was doing this.

I agree that this is sad and tragic....but at some point one has to take responsibility for their own actions.

[StanfordIndians1.]

So parents are suing Stanford;  the fraternity; The best friend who sold it to him;  even some the ex room mates;  Should they include the janitor that found him?

Can Stanford Counter sue the parents? (who are currently working at Stanford and the Stanford Med a Center).  No way they didn’t know Grier kid was doing this.

I agree that this is sad and tragic....but at some point one has to take responsibility for their own actions.

[2006alum]

at some point one has to take responsibility for their own actions.

Have you been to America in the year 2022? Not en vogue these days... ;)

[2006alum]

at some point one has to take responsibility for their own actions.

Have you been to America in the year 2022? Not en vogue these days... ;)