Caught With A DUI In New Jersey? You Can Now Blame The Bar That Served You
from the liability? dept
This is from a few weeks back, but techinabox writes in to point out the latest in ridiculously misapplied third party liability. It appears that in New Jersey, if you get good and drunk at a bar, and then hop in your car and get into legal trouble for driving under the influence (DUI), you can blame the bar for serving you... and win. The state supreme court said that it's perfectly reasonable for Fredrick Voss to sue the bar that served him drinks, even though he was the one who drove to the bar on his motorcycle, drank a bunch, and then got back on his motorcycle after drinking, drove off, ran a red light and got into an accident. A lower court still needs to determine if the bar actually is liable, but the supreme court seems to have no issue with holding bars liable in such situations. It's pretty scary that we keep seeing stories concerning attempts to stretch third party liability. Beyond blaming the wrong party, third party liability only serves to take responsibility off the parties actual responsible. It's a bad idea... but one that seems to be getting more and more popular.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: blame, dui, new jersey, responsibility, third party liability
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Which would also preclude them from taking credit cards. That seems like it would make it kind of hard for most bars to stay in business.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seems like they're creating a situation where bars have to spend more money hiring more staff to give the leaving patrons a sobriety test before letting them get in their cars.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does he live in the building? Is the bar in New York City? If not, chances are he has to drive home.
"Seems like they're creating a situation where bars have to spend more money hiring more staff to give the leaving patrons a sobriety test before letting them get in their cars."
Nope, it's simply against the law (and has been for a real long time) for bartenders to serve visibly intoxicated people. It really doesn't matter if he has to drive or walk. If you serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person and he's in an accident because of your negligence, he (and anyone else injured) can sue.
Is it the drinkers's fault? Sure. But is it also the fault of the bar for serving him when he was visibly intoxicated? Yep. And it's a jury question to determine the proportion each has to pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's a really tough standard. Some people can be blotto and look fine. Others can BE fine and then toss back a beer and be dangerous.
Regardless, you're removing the responsibility from the offending party (or at least spreading it around.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Imafish subtlety acknowledges the fact that the use of a designated driver is, as it always has been, something that no one actually believe can be conceivably put into practice...
Also ignored are taxis, public transportation, drinking responsibly and waiting a couple hours
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There's a silver lining
I'm pretty sure the women of NJ are about to breathe a collective sigh of relief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Strategy!
_sigh_ Time to emigrate, I suppose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strategy!
the USA is so far away from That it's not funny. you're not looking at a nanny state so much as a police state there. third party liability is yet another factor discouraging actions disliked by those in power and encouraging those with a grudge (or simply trying to get out of something) to report on those around them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strategy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Strategy!
> the idea of a 'nanny state'
Yep. Here's some more wonderful examples of the government deciding for us how to live our lives:
Want to go for a swim in King County, WA? You have to wear a life vest now, per government mandate.
http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/King-Co-requires-life-vests-for-swimmers-1432255. php
The food police are at it again as well. Apparently there's nothing to trivial and mundane that the Obama Administration doesn't believe should be the subject of federal regulation.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=44343
And if that wasn't enough, now the federal government has decided rude sex jokes by college students are an issue of such importance that the federal government must intervene and stamp them out. I can’t believe we’ve had to go this long without the loving embrace of the federal government micromanaging speech and thought and humor in our universities.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/politics/2011/06/feds-crack-down-campus-flirting-and- sex-jokes#ixzz1Q2KR6jbH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That *always* seem to be the result of such laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Drink a little and you just have more fun. Drink too much and pretty much anything can happen. Problem is, once you start drinking your ability to judge in what state you are diminshes.
And how can you be held accountable when your decision making process was altered by a drug, its like temporary insanity.
Every friday. And saturday. And some wednesdays.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If he got drunk on his own at home, do we let him off for the drunk driving because he was drunk and "hardly in his right mind"? Of course not.
If you voluntarily alter your state of mind through chemical means, you are responsible for everything you do in your new altered state. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And you aren't otherwise? "I'm sorry I ran over that child, Your Honor, but I was sober and therefore not responsible for my actions."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will it settle?
2. I don't think the bar owners should be over-serving people whether they are driving or not.
3. "A lower court still needs to determine if the bar actually is liable...". I would not be surprised if this case gets "quietly settled". I would imagine that if it were determined that the bar was at fault then that would have repercussions for the alcohol producers, bar and restaurant owners, professional Sports teams (anyone notice the alcoholic debauchery after a football game?) etc. I am sure any of these organizations would gladly through a few hundred thousand dollars at the problem and make it go away for a little while (till the next idiot decides to sue).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dram Shop Law
But this New Jersey case seems to have the potential to expand that to simple DUIs in which the bar can be sued by the driver if he/she simply gets pulled over and arrested. That I don't agree with at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dram Shop Law
That's dram shop. And once again, it's not new.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Guns next
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's already illegal in NZ
As we also have a UHC and ACC the only thing the licensed premise has to worry about are bad press, massive fines, and losing their license.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's already illegal in NZ
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two drink minimum
Then again, it might impose a "two drink maximum" at many places.
In the long run, it will probably just create another mandatory insurance situation. You won't be able to have a liquor license in NJ without carrying insurance for when someone gets drunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Two drink minimum
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So, if the plaintiff is 90% liable for his own accident and the bar is 10% responsible, as determined by the jury, then the bar only pays up 10% of the damages. Some states say if the plaintiff is 51% or more responsible for the damages, then the defendant pays nothing.
So, that sort of tempers a lot of the potential ill effects of being allowed to sue someone who played a relatively small role in an accident.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sue the roads he was driving in. Sue the vehicle producer. Sue the red light installer, runner, maintainer and producer. Sue the liquor that he drank. Sue the county that issued that bar a permit. Sue the person that signed the permit. Sue it's own boss for paying him enough to spend on drinks. Sue the government for issuing the money with which he payed. Sue the other patrons in the bar for not stopping him. Sue the oil company that sold him the fuel needed to make the vehicle work.
I bet he would make enough in settlements to turn a profit.
Why should we have common sense stop us on the way to make a profit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This has been coming for a long time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if others buy the drinks for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait, wait, wait
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What about groups of people?
I don't think the bars should be held instantly liable for someone getting drunk at their bar and then getting into an accident because they decided to drive. The bar employees should probably be questioned and then held liable if they served the person past the point of inebriation.
Here's another "what if". What if a person meets some friends at a bar and they get this person drunk. The bartenders don't know this person is drunk enough to cause themselves harm (multiple bartenders on a very busy night) and the person even leaves the bar with the group. Once outside that person decides they are not going with the others and gets in their own car to leave. The shitty "friends" let this person drive off only to get into an accident later. How could someone say the bar is responsible for that accident?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about groups of people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What about groups of people?
That's why many bars won't serve multiple drinks like that to a single person. It also keeps a person from buying a bunch of drinks at once with the intention of drinking them all herself and getting shitfaced without the bartender interfering.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the drunk person leaves a bar, gets into a car and hurts someone, that someone can sue the bar. Historically, the drunk driver, unless he was a minor, never had standing to sue the bar for his own issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Silly Laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm all over this one.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dram Shop Law
Years ago I was at a party in high school. The guy's parents were out of town, and the party got a little out of control. There was an extremely intoxicated girl that got pissed at her friends, got her keys (they were in her car, but she was not driving), and left without telling anyone. No one realized she had left until the police showed up. She had flipped her car into a ditch. Anyway, there was talk of the girl's family suing the parents of my classmate. The girl's friends had to go on record saying that she was drunk prior to arriving to the party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ouch
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing my fault
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing my fault
Here is the Sports Illustrated article about him going all litigation instead of owning up which I read years ago, but don't really remember all the details. All I know is I lost total respect for one of the great jockeys once he went lawsuit happy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Or some soldier will get his leg blown off stepping on a landmine and want the government to pay. Watch where you're stepping, idiot!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
yes, to a degree...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serving drunks
drink three, I am forcing it down. I can tell when a man or woman is getting drunk and so can a bartender. A woman will push her hair back frequently and that is a tell tale sign she has reached her limit. A guy will usually speak louder, and without pausing. There are other signs as well but these are the most visible.Some of us are weaker when it comes to alcohol, and some stronger. The weaker we have to help if we are truly human enough to do so. Tom Bragen, Bayonne, NJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Serving drunks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]