NJ court: Drunk driver can sue bar that served him

[chanel]

TRENTON -- New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled a convicted drunken driver has the right to sue the bar that served him.

Wednesday's 5-2 ruling stems from a 2006 motorcycle crash in which Frederick Voss had a blood-alcohol level of .196 percent, or nearly two and a half times the legal limit of .08 percent.

Voss later pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated.

He sued the Toms River restaurant Tiffany's, claiming it negligently kept serving him.

The tavern said the suit isn't allowed under a state law that says people convicted of DWI cannot sue.

The court ruled that law pertains to insurance claims, not to those who serve drinks.

Goodbye personal responsibility. It was nice knowing you.

 

[oldsalt]

Doesn't mean he'll win.

 

[chanel]

He'll win. Or the insurance company will settle. Either way, the bar owners are screwed. Liquor Liability insurance will go through the roof and they will be forced to raise prices or shut their doors. Welcome to NJ - Ambulance Chaser's Paradise. I used to think that lawyers and insurance companies were in opposition. Now I am starting to believe that they are in bed together.

Next target: Liquor stores.

 

[oldsalt]

If it was a third party, such as someone he hit, I'd see a better chance of winning the case. Him, i doubt it.

 

[chanel]

Hitting someone else has always been a cause for action. This is the first time it has been allowed for hurting one's self. I'm wondering if someone gets locked up, if they can sue for time lost at work and lawyer bills. Coming soon?

 

[strollingbones]

nc has tavern laws....you serve a drunk and he kills someone on the way home...your ass is in the sling too......hard place to put bartenders in.....

 

[Sallow]

He'll win. Or the insurance company will settle. Either way, the bar owners are screwed. Liquor Liability insurance will go through the roof and they will be forced to raise prices or shut their doors. Welcome to NJ - Ambulance Chaser's Paradise. I used to think that lawyers and insurance companies were in opposition. Now I am starting to believe that they are in bed together.

Next target: Liquor stores.

I doubt he'll win. I use to own a bar. And I was threatened with several lawsuits including one by a guy who slipped on his own vomit and cracked his head on the toilet because he was blind drunk. I told him to go for it..and that I would rather close the bar down then let him get one red cent.

 

[Sallow]

nc has tavern laws....you serve a drunk and he kills someone on the way home...your ass is in the sling too......hard place to put bartenders in.....

Ridiculous law.

 

[High_Gravity]

nc has tavern laws....you serve a drunk and he kills someone on the way home...your ass is in the sling too......hard place to put bartenders in.....

Ridiculous law.

Yeah no doubt, I would never bartend in that state too much responsibility.

 

[jillian]

TRENTON -- New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled a convicted drunken driver has the right to sue the bar that served him.

Wednesday's 5-2 ruling stems from a 2006 motorcycle crash in which Frederick Voss had a blood-alcohol level of .196 percent, or nearly two and a half times the legal limit of .08 percent.

Voss later pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated.

He sued the Toms River restaurant Tiffany's, claiming it negligently kept serving him.

The tavern said the suit isn't allowed under a state law that says people convicted of DWI cannot sue.

The court ruled that law pertains to insurance claims, not to those who serve drinks.

Goodbye personal responsibility. It was nice knowing you.

A few comments. First, New Jersey has dram shop laws which require bar owners to stop serving patrons they know are drunk. Bar owners have personal responsibility, too.
Second, someone who is that drunk doesn't necessarily have the judgment to stop drinking.
Third, the Court only said he has the right to sue, not that he will win. That will be up to the jury. And shouldn't the jury ultimately be the finders of fact?

 

[strollingbones]

working the bar is a bitch now.....hell you serve a minor they fine you...not the bar but you....if you slip up so many times...i think it is 3...you can go to jail

 

[High_Gravity]

TRENTON -- New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled a convicted drunken driver has the right to sue the bar that served him.

Wednesday's 5-2 ruling stems from a 2006 motorcycle crash in which Frederick Voss had a blood-alcohol level of .196 percent, or nearly two and a half times the legal limit of .08 percent.

Voss later pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated.

He sued the Toms River restaurant Tiffany's, claiming it negligently kept serving him.

The tavern said the suit isn't allowed under a state law that says people convicted of DWI cannot sue.

The court ruled that law pertains to insurance claims, not to those who serve drinks.

Goodbye personal responsibility. It was nice knowing you.

A few comments. First, New Jersey has dram shop laws which require bar owners to stop serving patrons they know are drunk. Bar owners have personal responsibility, too.
Second, someone who is that drunk doesn't necessarily have the judgment to stop drinking.
Third, the Court only said he has the right to sue, not that he will win. That will be up to the jury. And shouldn't the jury ultimately be the finders of fact?

Sometimes its not easy to tell, me and my friend in Houston can order a drink with a straight face and no slurred words, but be drunk as hell. I would never sue a bartender or bar for something stupid I did after the fact though, they didn't put a gun to my head and make me drink that liquor.

 

[High_Gravity]

working the bar is a bitch now.....hell you serve a minor they fine you...not the bar but you....if you slip up so many times...i think it is 3...you can go to jail

My girlfriend almost had to go to court because she served a minor in the bar she worked at, the kid was 19 and snuck in past the bouncer at the front door. The kid vanished though and the case was dismissed.

 

[chanel]

Bartenders do have a responsibility not to overserve. But let's get real. I blew .08 on 2 1/2 beers on a test machine.

The problem here is that someone can drink at home or somewhere else, have one or two drinks at the bar, and somehow the bartender is responsible for that? There has to be some protection for the servers. I guess the bartenders will have to start getting liability insurance for themselves.

Maybe my theory about the lawyers sleeping with the enemy ain't so far off.

 

[chanel]

The Jersey Supreme Court recently ruled that there is no state law barring drunk drivers from suing the establishments that served them alcohol - if they get in a crash and cause injury or property damage.The case involved a Brick man who filed suit against a Toms River restaurant where he had been drinking before injuring himself in a motorcycle crash.

Assemblyman John Amodeo believes this is totally outrageous - so he's introduced a measure to make it illegal for drunk drivers to file this kind of suit.

"We have to be more responsible for our actions than to just become intoxicated, possibly injure other people and then be able to sue" he says, "as the Legislature goes into summer recess, I'm going to look for a lot of support with this piece of legislation, so that we can move it and protect our small restaurants, our small bars, our small business owners and even our casinos."

He adds "we should have no tolerance for drunken drivers and they should be held responsible for their own actions, businesses should not be penalized for other people's stupidity."

Jersey Lawmaker Wants To Stop Drunk Drivers From Suing Restaurants - New Jersey 101.5 FM

 

[FA_Q2]

A few comments. First, New Jersey has dram shop laws which require bar owners to stop serving patrons they know are drunk. Bar owners have personal responsibility, too.
Second, someone who is that drunk doesn't necessarily have the judgment to stop drinking.

Wow, jillian, just wow. How is that the bar's responsibility. That kind of thinking is asinine. YOU want to purchase a drink then YOU are responsible for the outcomes. Should you not have the ability to stop then you should not have taken the drink in the first place. That law is a joke and should have never made it to the books. We do not need daddy riding along with us for our entire lives taking the blame for us

Third, the Court only said he has the right to sue, not that he will win. That will be up to the jury. And shouldn't the jury ultimately be the finders of fact?

This is true and I cannot see why they would rule any other way. He has the right to sue and the bar has a right to place a counter suit. Neither will win, though I think that the bar should win a counter suit on the basis that his is a frivolous suit.

He'll win. Or the insurance company will settle.

And what is that based on? No he won't and the insurance company has no reason to settle. This will be a single day in court as they laugh him out of it.