Right after this happened, and I was writing posts about it, all I kept hearing from folks is how these people were all friends and how no one wanted to seek revenge (or a long sentence) for what happened to Danny Dahlquist.
Now, we have the lawsuit.
The 22-count suit names David Crady, 21, Ryan Johnson, 23, Daniel Cox, 22, and Nicholas Mentgen, 23, as well as Mentgen’s parents, Ronald and Jeanne Mentgen, as defendants. The counts are virtually identical for the former roommates and cite negligence and “willful and wanton misconduct,” in that they “disregarded the safety and welfare of (Dahlquist) and started a fire in the bedroom of (Dahlquist)” on Aug. 12, 2007.
Such an action, the suit alleges, was in “total disregard for the safety of Sheridan Dahlquist.”
The Mentgens, both the parents and their son, also face counts naming them as landlords and owners of the West Peoria house at 2008 W. Laura Ave., which Crady, Mentgen and Johnson shared with Dahlquist.
Also:
The lawsuit contained no new allegations regarding the fire or the fireworks. However, it did allege the Mentgens, as landlords, did not have working smoke detectors or carbon monoxide detectors in the house. The suit also alleges the Mentgens knew of underage drinking and previous use of fireworks at the house.
No doubt there will be all sorts of speculation, accusation and whispering.
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
They say time is a healer… but sometimes wounds do fester.
we fantasize enuff about bloodsuckers, turn them into movies. “twilight” isnt real and someone wants cash justice. we should all enjoy this time in the limelight…
the article fails to mention the plaintiff’s lawyers. save your scorn for them.
This is all too sad for words.
The Dahlquists’ attorneys are Brady & Donahue. I understand that it is against the law to rent a place with no smoke detectors, but I don’t see how that would have helped in this situation. Also, forgetting that the Mentgens are one roommate’s parents, I don’t see why a landlord should have a duty to prevent an adult tenant from doing something stupid like this.
Perhaps this is really targeted at an insurance company.
I know its a free country, but I hope that bloggers and commenters leave this alone. It should be left up to the judicial system and the families involved.
Diane, couldn’t that be said for nearly everything ANYONE, including yourself, puts on a blog? Why is this different?
It’s very difficult to hold a landlord accountable for this unless he never had smoke alarms to begin with. Honestly my smoke alarms sitting on my kitchen counter waiting for a new battery. It had one when I moved in but started chirping a month afterwards. I can’t stand the chirping and removed the battery. Is that his fault, or my own neglect? More than likely the attorneys are going for the deep pockets behind the boys and that would be the landlord’s insurance company.
I have mixed feelings about the suit. I agree, it’s a tragedy and needs to be left alone. But I also believe it’s a son they’re burying and that’s expensive. Financially and emotionally. Sometimes not being burdened with the expense of the funeral can help give closure.
Whatever it is, I do hope all involved find some peace.
Diane — Why don’t you feel the same way about the Julie McArdle/Mary Davis situation? Why wouldn’t that be up to the judicial system and the families involved, too?
Um – because someone is dead – and any of the people involved could be any of our kids. There will be no winners however this shakes out. Like I said, its a free country. Do what you want – that was my opinion.
I’m surprised you have to ask that, CJ.
Diane — While your arbitrary rules may make perfect sense to you, they’re not self-evident. Thanks for sharing your hopes.
diane. Peoria’s Sarah Palin! and she makes as much sense too.
Why wouldn’t the family sue for damages?
While money will not heal the wounds, it will certainly help costs associated w/ the tragedy, and future needs of the family.
CJ- let me answer that. There is a big difference between college age boys and a middle aged woman with a PhD. Mary Davis knew full well the ramifications of her illegal actions. While I do not condone the behavior of the boys, I do not believe it to have been done with malice–unlike Mary Davis.
that the alleged actions of Mary Davis represent a gross abuse of power and theft of parent and taxpayer funds by a public official. Her actions have resounding consequences for thousands of Peoria students, taxpayers and district employees.
“bigdif” — First of all, Davis has heretofore only be accused of wrongdoing. She has not been proven guilty of anything, let alone been proven to do it “with malice.” In contrast, the “boys” (adults, all of them) have been tried and convicted.
Secondly, it doesn’t take a PhD nor the attainment of middle age to figure out the ramifications of playing with fire. I have a nine-year-old fourth-grader who knows better than to play with matches.
Yes, there could be a completely logical explanation why Mary Davis had a secret credit card registered to Charles Lindbergh Middle School that she said did not exist, the district did not authorize, and had thousands of dollars of personal expenses charged and paid for by student funds.
CJ: so “if” your nine year old EVER does anything wrong in his life that someone younger than him knows better than to do, you will, what, eat your words? The reason I say this is because you should NEVER say your child won’t make “this or that” mistake because you will pay for that comment, someday. AS far as Davis is concerned the investigation continues…….
So true, Bigdif!
I disagree with the sentiment that this topic is “off limits” and wonder at the PJS not allowing comments on their coverage of it. What criteria do they apply to stories? Which ones are off limits? And why? Do they apply these criteria arbitrarily or in a fair and judicious manner?
Thank goodness for the PP.
As citizens in a free society we need to be able to voice our thoughts – even when tragedy presents itself. Tragedy shouldn’t be off limits. More to the point, journalistic coverage of tragedy should be open to comment.
I’m gonna weigh in on this one (even though it’s been fun watching everyone bash everyone else). Folks, there is no similarity between the Mary Davis situation and this one, for the reasons stated above. That’s not a defense for what Mary Davis has done and is alleged to have done.
Any lawsuit is a matter of public record. The circumstances leading the the lawsuit are public record because it’s been through the court before. No doubt plaintiffs have been advised this is going to mean a new round of public scrutiny.
Unless you have a lot of money to toss away, or you have an attorney who is out to prove a point, you don’t file a lawsuit like this for any reason other than to get money. A damages lawsuit is a an attempt by person A to get money from person B. That’s it. That’s why I used the headline I did.
The parents may or may not believe they got justice from the criminal case. The fact is they DID get justice, maybe not the justice they wanted.
To be blunt about it, if they didn’t want any of the scrutiny of the press and the blogosphere, they shouldn’t have filed a lawsuit.
“That’s why I used the headline I did.”
Sorry I’m late responding to this post, but it just stuck me: Your headline is an example of why blogging is not and can never be “journalism.” Forget objectivity for a moment. Journalism is a collaborative process. It involves not just a reporter, but also one or more editors. Your headline would obviously never have appeared above a news story.
I never said my child would not make this or that mistake. I simply said she knows better. Kids, like adults, often don’t use the good sense God gave them, but that doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for their actions. I was taking issue with the implication that these “college age boys” just didn’t understand the ramifications of playing with fire. Hogwash.
You’re simply restating the accusations as if they were established fact. None of what you said has been legally substantiated.
They are esablished fact, and much of it you can find on your own website.
1. There was a secret credit card
2. It was registered to Lindbergh School
3. Mary Davis denied in writing its existance
4. District 150 stated to the Peoria Journal Star that it was not authorized
5. Credit card statements prove that thousands of dollars of expenses were charged to it.
6. School Records that pertain to these charges are missing.
Do you want this person in control of your retirement account?
Not to mention: I’m gonna call a foul. You’re repeating yourself, and arguing arguing against a point that isn’t being made. There’s a ton of evidence. But C.J. is right in that she hasn’t been charged or convicted in anything. And Mary Davis is not the subject of this post and her case is not relevant to this one. Drop it and move on, as this is very close to thread hijacking.
http://peoriapundit.com/blogpeoria/the-rules-2/
Sorry, Billy. I brought up Mary Davis in response to Diane’s comment, so it’s my fault. I’ll drop it. But (can’t resist a parting shot) you are correct as to my point; I don’t deny that there’s lots of evidence against Davis.
I got crucified for stating my opinions on this on a social networking site, but here I go again.
That house is 2 blocks from mine. My best friend lived across the street at the time. It was her SO and other adults that kept those kids from going back inside. She was there when they pulled Danny out of the house. I was a college student at the time. I knew those boys because my children played soccer and the BU team used to offer tips to them. When I heard what happened I was just as heart sick as everybody else.
Mr. & Mrs. Dahlquist were very honorable and forgiving throughout the whole ordeal. They stood by those boys and asked the judge to not make this a bigger tragedy than it was already. They stated over and over again that they didn’t want to destroy everyone’s family. They were compared to saints for their stoicness.
Fast forward 4 days shy of the statute running out and you see a set of parents, apparently, exacting their own sense of justice. I, personally, think that Danny would be upset to learn that his parents were doing this.
Just the weekend before his death, he was also shooting bottle rockets in the house while drinking. One of those boys could have died that night. Nobody got hurt, so they didn’t see the danger in it (hard to see danger when you are drinking anyway). The weekend that he died, they had ALL been drinking. Danny was just aware enough to put a towel under his door, so he must have known that they would be doing it again. He was PASSED OUT DRUNK when the firework entered his room. The only way he would have gotten out (if at all) would have been if he had been sober.
I think the Dahlquist family will learn more about their “sweet” Danny than they really want to. Yes, he was sweet, kind and loving, but he was also a college student who drank underage and made some poor choices.
Sorry for the novel. Just my opinions.
I was surprised to read the Dahlquist’s had filed a lawsuit. I have never suffered such a tragedy, but it seems like this will re-open the wound and make the pain fresh again, both for the parents and all his younger siblings. I hope the money is worth it. I agree that a trial may very well bring out some facts that are uncomfortable for the family.