'Never a good reason' for drinking and driving

Jul 23, 2010- 3:54 PM

Family and friends hold walk in teen's memory

By: Heidi Ulrichsen - Sudbury Northern Life Staff

On July 30, 2008, Jennifer Ranger woke up to the news that her 17-year-old daughter, Samantha Berard, had been killed in a drinking and driving incident.

“It was a very shocking wakeup call,” she said. “I thought I was dreaming.”

Berard left a Lively bar in the early morning hours of that day, and climbed into a vehicle driven by her boyfriend, Dustin Simon. 

Family and friends of 17-year-old Samantha Berard, who was killed in a drinking and driving incident in 2008, held a walk in her memory July 20.  Supplied photo. 

Family and friends of 17-year-old Samantha Berard, who was killed in a drinking and driving incident in 2008, held a walk in her memory July 20. Supplied photo.The Marymount Academy student never made it back to her Whitefish Lake First Nation home. The vehicle the pair were in swerved and hit an embankment on Regional Road 55, close to Old Soo Road.

Neither Bernard nor Simon were wearing a seatbelt, and Berard, who was partially ejected from the vehicle, was pronounced dead at the scene.

Simon, who survived the crash, was sentenced to two years and two months in jail, for impaired driving causing death.

Family and friends of 17-year-old Samantha Berard, who was killed in a drinking and driving incident in 2008, held a walk in her memory July 20. Berard’s six-year-old brother, Brandon Ranger, and her mother, Jennifer Ranger, spread an anti-drinking and driving message at the event.

Family and friends of 17-year-old Samantha Berard, who was killed in a drinking and driving incident in 2008, held a walk in her memory July 20. Berard’s six-year-old brother, Brandon Ranger, and her mother, Jennifer Ranger, spread an anti-drinking and driving message at the event.

Ranger, along with about a dozen friends and family members, held a memorial walk in her daughter’s memory July 20, starting out at the bar where her daughter had been the evening she died, and walking along the side of Regional Road 55.

A similar event was also held last year, she said, but it was more of an impromptu gathering.

“This year, we thought we’d get the media involved, because there’s way too much drinking and driving in the community,” she said.

“I am hoping that this sends a message to people out there that you are taking chances with other people’s loved ones out there, and please stop (drinking and driving).”

In June 2009, three teens — Caitlin Jelley, Steven Phillipe and Jazmine Houle — were hit and killed by a drunk driver on the side of the Municipal Road 80 in Hanmer.

By coincidence, Houle is the niece of one of Ranger’s childhood friends. Ranger said the incident hit close to home.

“I think about (the teens killed in this incident) all the time,” she said. “It’s hard to move on when you hear about drinking and driving on a weekly basis, sometimes two to three times a week. Nobody’s getting the message.”

Ranger’s youngest child, six-year-old Brandon, brought a hand-made no drinking and driving sign to the event, complete with his own illustrations, and the word “No” printed multiple times at the bottom of the poster.

“It’s for my sister’s walk,” he said. “She was nice to me. I miss her.”

Ranger said she always considered her daughter a wonderful person, but thought it was just that she was looking at her through her “mother’s eyes.”

But she said he hasn’t heard one negative thing about Berard in the two years since the accident occurred.

“(Samantha) was very articulate,” she said.

“She loved playing baseball and football. She was a great hostess. Every time we had a family gathering, she was always preparing veggie plates and fruit platters. She was always asking people ‘Are you comfortable? Do you want something to drink?’

“She was always playing with the little kids. If she saw a little kid get hurt, she would always be the one to go and attend to the child.”

Mallory Blake, who was among those at the event, was one of Berard’s close friends.

She recalled her friend as a fun person who was “full of life all the time, and always ready to do something crazy.”

“I think it’s very important that we all do something to show people what can happen if you drink and drive,” she said, as her eyes welled up with tears.

“It was horrible. Don’t (drink and drive). There’s never a good reason, ever. You can stay home, you can walk, you can stay at your friend’s house. Anything.”

 

Read More: Home > Police and Court

Reader's Feedback

Editor’s Note:

NorthernLife.ca may contain content submitted by readers, usually in the form of article comments. All reader comments and any opinions, advice, statements or other information contained in any messages posted or transmitted by any third party are the responsibility of the author of that message and not of NorthernLife.ca. The fact that a particular message is posted on or transmitted using this web site does not mean that NorthernLife.ca has endorsed that message in any way or verified the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message. We encourage visitors to NorthernLife.ca to report any objectionable content by using the "report abuse" link found in the comments section of this web site.


  • Article comments have been disabled.

19 Comments

  • Con't

    I is like you said PHILLIP; we are getting off track here.
    I am sorry that you feel that you need to attack people who are only trying to make a change for the better!

    I am trying to send a message of NOT to Drink and Drive and now the Importance of wearing a Seatbelt, under age drinking and a CHANGE. I am Not fund raising; just bringing awareness!!!

    If I can help save someones loved one/ one's I will!
    I don't believe you have suffered with a trauma of this nature and I only hope that you will never have to deal with it either. It really does tear you apart!

  • Con't

    I is like you said PHILLIP; we are getting off track here.
    I am sorry that you feel that you need to attack people who are only trying to make a change for the better!

    I am trying to send a message of NOT to Drink and Drive and now the Importance of wearing a Seatbelt, under age drinking and a CHANGE. I am Not fund raising; just bringing awareness!!!

    If I can help save someones loved one/ one's I will!
    I don't believe you have suffered with a trauma of this nature and I only hope that you will never have to deal with it either. It really does tear you apart!

  • We all understand the black and white of the law skndstry. Yes, an establishment is not to serve minors. They have a responsibility to ensure that patrons do not drink and drive. They must take REASONABLE steps to prevent impaired driving.
    The steps and practice are not 100% perfect science. It’s akin to having a person trip on the stairs in the entrance and now you have a lawsuit because of a fall.

    The individual’s responsibility is ultimate here. A person, not a child, made a conscious decision to go to a bar and pass themselves off as an adult. They not only broke the law by entering the bar, but continued to violate the Liquor License Act by purchasing, and again by consuming the liquor under age. (Yes the bar has to take REASONABLE steps to identify possible youth violators)
    The passenger, also illegally entered the establishment. Did she purchase and consume? A highly certain probability. Then decided to get into the car. One operated, by CHOICE by an intoxicated person. The next deadly choice was to break the Highway Traffic Act and not wear the live saving seat belt.

    Again, all liquor establishments cannot possibly be expected, within REASON, to follow every patron to see if they are driving. That CHOICE is on the individual. Just as the choice was to walk into the bar in the first place. To consume as well. Regardless of where the alcohol came from, the CHOICE to drink and drive was made alone.
    Yes, the bar has to be investigated and properly charged under the Liquor License Act. We shouldn’t let that derail the CHOICE made by the individuals.

    Finally, the flimsy excuse they were ‘children’ also doesn’t fly. These were not 5 year olds. And as the Youth Criminal Justice Act also shows, there are provisions to have youths, as young as 16, tried as ADULTS, based on the individual and the circumstances.

  • Note to Phillip:

    Just by reading your comments, it makes me wonder if you yourself are a repetitive drunk driver.

    There are alot of contributing factors that were not told in the story. The reason being is simply because I am trying to bring awareness of not to drink and drive. Yes the seatbelt was a contributing factor as well, there is no doubt about that.I should of mentioned about how important the seatbelt is. Next year I will be bringing awareness to this problem area too.

    Yes my daughter should of had been wearing her seatbelt and if you knew all the facts of what went on that night, you would have a better grasp of what exactely happened that night and a better under standing why things turned out the way it did.

    My daughter should of had not been with that so called boyfriend. He was much older then her; which was very wrong in my eyes but I could not tear them apart no matter what I did. He was an abuser and he was abusing her that night, some people interveined to stop the altercation but Samantha was repeatedly asked by her boyfriend to leave with him; so she did! There were others there that night that knew the both of them and they tried to get Samantha to leave with them because they DID have a Sober Driver to Drive them home.

    An Abusive person has all control over their sugnificant other while in a relationship. And Samantha's boyfriend won by getting her to leave with him. I believe she took her seatbelt off to get out of the car because of the arguement continuing in the car. Which makes sense due to the fact that the car was out of control for a great length of time before hitting the ditch and some other info not mentioned.

    Yes she was 17, believing anything she was told and feeling that nothing bad would happen to her, just like every other teenage child out there. She should of had NOT even been there at the Huddle, should have NOT been drinking, should have NOT gotten into the car with a drunk driver, should have NOT bee

  • cont'd...

    - Patron dies, and bar can and likely will be held legally responsible.

    So, if the argument is over who is to "blame, it is clear there is blame to go around. And that is a legal "fact" too.

    This at least brings some balance to the argument.

  • "Bottom line is that no bar can 100% prevent someone from walking out the door and CHOOSING to drive. No bar can follow every patron out the door just to check to see if they might drive. The onus here is on the individual."

    The problem with your argument is that BY LAW, the expectation is the the bar WILL ensure that people drinking in their establishments are a) of the legal age, and b) not driving when they leave. The LEGAL onus is therefore on the bar to ensure this is the case.

    I'm not discounting personal responsibility at all, but for a guy in love with "facts", you seem to want to ignore this one.

    The REAL bottom line is that they have a case to sue, and they will do so and win. If you disagree, take it up with the law, not joy_3.

    Agreed that gender and race are puzzling issues to bring into the debate, and also that a 17-year-old is old enough to know better.

    I note that you have focused on the choices and legalities involved - they broke the law by drinking and driving, not wearing seatbelts, etc.

    BUT, the fact also remains that had the bar followed the very clear rules under their liquor license NOT to serve Samantha, this whole argument may well have been moot, as the series of events that took place would have been altered.

    Would this accident ultimately have taken place somewhere else at another time and date? Maybe. Maybe not.

    But it took place in THAT time and date, partially because the Huddle and the servers working made a profit-driven CHOICE to BREAK THE LAW and over-serve both patrons, one of which was an underage person.

    Do we know if Samantha would have made a better decision had she been sober?

    No - and we never will.

    Let's review, shall we?

    - Sequence of events begins at bar that broke law by serving under age person.
    - LAW and liquor license stipulate that bar is responsible EVEN AFTER patrons leave establishment.
    - Patron dies, and bar can and likely will be held l

  • Let it be your chid and lets see what your comment would be then. You don't know anything if we can safe just one person from drinking and driving with our walk so be it....

  • Notice how once the battle has been lost, the more outrageous the counter claims by joy become?
    Lets deal with the facts joybuzz. YOU are the one that is grasping at straws here. Not ONCE has anybody brought up gender or race as an excuse. That desperate move is yours.
    Another deflection from the facts. Designed to incite a knee jerk reaction that there is some deeper thing going on here. When there is not.

    Bottom line is that no bar can 100% prevent someone from walking out the door and CHOOSING to drive. No bar can follow every patron out the door just to check to see if they might drive.
    The onus here is on the individual. Ones that made conscious choices to drive to a bar. Consume alcohol. Walk out and drive. Choice to get in, knowing the driver was impaired. Knowing the difference between right and wrong. Choosing to break the law and drink under age. Choosing to break the law and refuse to wear a seatbelt.
    The perfect, self-made storm. No gender or race clouds or interferes with those facts. PERIOD.
    Heck, even the LCBO doesn’t follow patrons outside to check and see if they are guzzling their purchases and driving off.
    Time to get your head out of the sand and off your personal, twisted, crusade. Put the blame where it belongs. On the ones that made the CHOICE to drink and drive. The CHOICE to go along with it.
    Bottom line is sooner or later the odds catch up with the laws they CHOOSE to contravene.

  • Wow 17 is now considered an adult. Thought it was nineteen. What about 14, 15 and 16 years as an adult. The Huddle was the culprit in her death-along with the looser boyfriend who killed her. Cranky Joe's was the culprit in the three childrens death getting off the bus when their impaired customer killed them. Hope both establishments are sued in civil court for the deaths of these kids. You can keep up with P. Morris and the rants he spews out against aborignal people and other cultures. Pretty soon it will be against middle age bloated males like you.

  • What the #$%@ does her aboriginal status have to do with this? I was not aware she had status but at no time does that come into play here. I was referring to her not being a child because at 17 that is how the education system treats you.
    P Morris is right - you have issues and have lost touch with reality. Many mistakes have been made but it is ultimately up to the individual; the people who CHOOSE to drink and drive, the people who CHOOSE to get into a car with a drunk individual and unfortunately you CHOOSE to place blame on a business owner who was found to have done nothing wrong. Sad really.

  • Same owner of both bars in Sudbury and closed one in Hanmer. Now he has limos and buses bringing home drunks-big deal. He let his staff throw drinks at the killer and jump in his car to murder three kids getting off the bus. Now he wants to be big hero and support all charities in Sudbury. Maybe he can make his big donations to the children's families who had to endure the funeral costs cause his staff did not call police but let an impaired angry driver go off without informing anyone. Look at the law-no drinking establishments are allowed to serve drunks including drunk drivers. Also any kid under 18 years is a child according to the law, get a grip on your facts. Maybe you want to saw Samantha was an adult cause of her aborignal status-this makes you an absolute moron.

  • Try and follow your own thought process here - you said "A child was drinking at a local establishment" and I said "these were not children" - Samantha was not a child, her boyfriend was not a child - they knew the difference between right and wrong.

    Since you seem to be so informed about the situation - how many drinks did the driver have? (please define slugging away)
    Yes Cranky Joe's in the Valley closed so why would you mention it as being in the Valley unless you are purposefully trying to hurt another business that had no part in this situation.
    Why was the ambulance only minutes in responding to the scene? Did you attend the LLBO hearing? As for jumping in his car - are you sure about that?
    Have you been to Cranky Joe's? Are you aware of the MADD programs that they have in place? What events are you referring to that "cater" to drinking and driving? (the free limo rides or shuttle buses???)
    Bottom line, the driver should be solely responsible for taking three innocents, not the bar owner, his family or his staff. They did everything they were supposed too.
    You on the other hand, have no idea what you are talking about and want to blame everyone else. When will people become responsible for their own actions?

  • Don't waste too much time Mr.toujours.
    People like joybuzzer have lost touch with reality. Their twisted logic and blind rage has them calling bar owners murderers.

    Next thing they'll want is to sue Molsons or Labatts for making the beer the driver consumed. A lawsuit against the glass company for making the beer mugs. Chrysler, Ford, or GM for making the car they drove in. The mall for renting the space to a bar. Etc..etc..

    Pure insane drivel spewed out in a froth of blind rage. No logic at all. A sad coping mechanism conjured up by them to try and seek blame anywhere. This was the furthest thing from 'murder'. There was no planning or targeting of a specific person. What a joke.

  • Wow hit a hot buttion, Cranky Joe's in the Valley closed up shop after the murder of the three teenagers by an impaired driver who was slugging away at Cranky Joe's. Not one staff person called police when he jumped in his car to go and kill innocent children (yes they were children). I hope the owner of Cranky Joe's has the biggest lawsuit against him in civil court as well. He throws events to cater to drinking and driving. Maybe he can cater an event to MADD or donate money for funeral costs.

  • Joy_3 you are the obvious moron here - Cranky Joe's was investigated and found to have done nothing wrong so stop spewing your garbage. And what are you talking about "bus stop"? You have no idea what you are talking about, you don't even know the story. It is people like you who make these situation worse. There is no Cranky Joe's in the Valley there is a new restaurant there now; hopefully your disgusting nonsense does not affect their business.
    You should be asking where is the personal accountability in these situations? These were not children as you so describe and know the difference between right and wrong.
    Further, Cranky Joe's has always thrown many events on the community to honour many hardworking groups and he will probably continue to do so - because thats the type of person he is.

  • Sorry to bring in the truth there joy. But you can't discount certain facts and manipulate an incident to fit a personal campaign.
    Insults only further give credence to the total story that you don't want to accept. A terrible way to cope, but that's your own problem.

    Bottom line here is people obviously have let thier bias and agenda cloud reasoning. A personal crusade against one bar has some posters picking any fight they can lay thier hands on. The total facts be dammed.

    Face it folks. This was a 100% preventable tragedy. All it would have taken was one word, "No."
    As in, NO, I won't get in the car with you. No, I will call someone. And NO, a seatbelt IS a good idea.
    This isn't victimizing a victim. It’s pointing out that everyone has CHOICE in what they do. Including sitting there and watching your ride consume alcohol. Then consciously getting into the car yourself.
    Suing won't bring back the mistakes of the past. In the end, it only cheapens the price of a life. Let’s not sacrifice the truth for the sake of trying to manufacture a martyr for a cause.

  • Obvious Phillip is a moron to but the blame on a child and not the adults serving illegal alchool. A child was drinking at a local establishment without being ID and everyone knows she was underage. Hope the Mom sues the drinking establishment (although I hear they closed up shop, so they will claim they have no money)and the looser boyfriend gets a hefty jail sentence. This is not the first time a bunch of drunks have left a Sudbury area establishment and killed children. Look at "Cranky Joe's" who let the drunk off and murder three children at a bus stop. Now the owner of Cranky Joe's (same in Sudbury and Valley) is donating to all charities in Sudbury trying to pretend he is an upright citizen and trying to make us forget he will be sued by the teenager's parents. He has hosted alot of events catering to health professionals and teachers but most won't go within one mile of his establishment due to his phony attitude to drinking and driving. Actually he endorses everyone to come and drink a martini like the "Mash" series. Be careful where you put your money.

  • Never an excuse for drinking and driving.

    Also never an excuse for underage drinking and knowingly getting into a car with a drunk behind the wheel. Never an excuse for not wearing your seatbelt either.

    Bottom line here folks the drunk driver is just ONE piece of this incident. Seatbelts also save lives.

  • Two years and 2 months..way to go judge. You should be doing the walk of shame with Mr Simon.

FacebookTwitterRSSVideophotoNewsletterMobile