Settlement approved in wrongful death suit against Joe Hardy
A Fayette County judge has approved a $200,000 payout as partial settlement in a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the parents of a teenager who died in a drunken-driving accident at Nemacolin Woodlands Resort in Farmington.
The settlement calls for Daniel and Patricia Nelson to end their claims against resort founder Joseph Hardy and his daughter Paige in the wrongful death lawsuit. The lawsuit will continue against the resort and the driver.
The settlement was approved Friday by Judge John F. Wagner Jr.
The Nelsons' son, Zack, died five days after a teenage driver's vehicle hit a tree at the resort near Farmington on Sept. 10, 2011.
Police said the driver, Steven DiCenzo, then 17, of Uniontown had a blood-alcohol content of 0.136 percent.
Under Pennsylvania law, a teen driver is considered intoxicated at 0.02 percent.
The wrongful death lawsuit alleged Hardy was liable because he knew his daughter hosted underage drinking parties, including the one just before the fatal crash, but did nothing.
Paige Hardy was cleared of liability in August when a judge found that, under the state's “social host” doctrine, minors who give alcohol to other minors cannot be held liable.
The settlement calls for $93,510.19 paid to Zack Nelson's estate; $31,170.06 to the Nelsons; $58,275 to Thomas E. Crenney Associates for legal fees; and $17,044.75 to Crenney & Associates for reimbursable fees.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.