New Jersey Court: Bars Liable Even When Drivers Get Drunk Elsewhere

March 21, 2008

  • March 21, 2008 at 7:27 am
    SAMMY SUEJUDGE says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I THINK WE SHOULD LAUNCH A CLASS ACTION SUIT AGAINST THESE IRRESPONSIBLE MONEY CHASING JUDGES WHO MAKE RULINGS CAUSING LOST REVENUES TO SMALL BUSINESSES BUT IGNORE THE LARGE CASINOS. INCLUDE ALL THE BIG GUYS IN THE SUIT CUZ THEY GET SUBSIDIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OR THEY WOULD NOT SUCCEED.

  • March 21, 2008 at 10:58 am
    David says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Whatever happened to personal responsibility? Dram shop laws are bad enough but what do we call this kind of law? What were the bartenders supposed to do here as they managed a croweded bar and had to pay attention to the people WHO WERE ACTUALLY CONSUMING ALCOHOL? This is an example of an out of control court system. I am ashamed to call NJ home.

  • March 21, 2008 at 11:34 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Charles, if you read the article you’ll note that the driver was not served alcohol. He got drunk before he got there, but was not served a single drop of booze while at the bar being held liable. They served his passengers. That’s what makes this ruling so idiotic.

  • March 21, 2008 at 11:36 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I’m on for the suit against the alcohol manufacturers. We can add in lost income from having to call in sick from hangovers, loss of consortium and increasing my chances of getting liver problems.

    You should drop the suit against the fast food chains as that battle was already lost. The judge decided people were not misled into eating themselves into obesity.

  • March 21, 2008 at 11:44 am
    Calif Ex Pat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Basically New Jerksy doesn’t have enough cops to breathalize everyone leaving a bar so the state is making the bar operators the de facto ‘driving gate-keepers’ – also, this imbecilic ruling makes more liability insurance available to pay for the damages done by inebriate operators – on a brighter note, maybe this will cause every bar in New Jersey to close thereby sparing the rest of us from the dangers of some of those who drink and drive

  • March 21, 2008 at 1:18 am
    lastbat says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I believe all dram shop laws should be revoked. They remove responsibility from where it belongs and place it where the money is.

    This case in particular is outrageous. They didn’t serve the driver any alcohol yet are liable for his actions? What, proprietors now have a duty to protect everyone who comes into their establishment? We have to worry about every little thing they may do after they leave our place of business all because they happened to be there? We need to insert some personal responsibility back into our laws before we completely shut down businesses.

  • March 21, 2008 at 1:59 am
    Chuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I whole-heartedly agree. I’ve handled dram shop cases which involve a number of different states. This is probably the most unfavorable ruling I’ve seen.

  • March 21, 2008 at 2:01 am
    DM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is absolutely ridiculous. At what point do people become responsible for their OWN actions in this country?? The server that is making minimum wage is now responsible for some idiot that can’t make good decisions for himself?

  • March 21, 2008 at 2:04 am
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    Agreed. Wouldn’t this make the convenience mart where they stopped to buy cigarettes and the gas station where they bought gas liable too? If you see a person drunk in public do you have to make a citizens arrest? What if you don’t and they hurt themselves or someone else? This is crazy!

  • March 21, 2008 at 2:08 am
    Chuck says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    This is even worse than joint and several liability, as in this situation, there wasn’t a breach of duty to the affected persons.

    Must be a plaintiff run bar by the Jersey Boys…



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*