We Provide Representation in Pennsylvania
We Provide Representation in New York
We Provide Representation in New Jersey
We Provide Representation in Florida
We Provide Representation in West Virginia
We Provide Representation in Delaware
We Provide Representation in Maryland

NJ Supreme Court Opinion

 NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT RULES THAT INJURED DRUNK DRIVERS MAY SUE BARS THAT FURNISHED THEM ALCOHOL 

            (TRENTON, NJ,  June 2, 2011) – The New Jersey Supreme Court has issued an Opinion holding that despite a prohibiting drivers convicted of DWI from recovering in tort for injuries, a drunk driver may recover for injuries against a bar establishment that improperly furnished them alcohol, under New Jersey’s Dram Shop Act.

            In Voss v. Tranquilio, a 5-2 decision, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that such Dram Shop claims may be brought by an injured intoxicated driver.

            The case stems from a 2006 incident in which Fredrick Voss crashed his motorcycle into a car and injured himself.  His blood alcohol level was nearly two-and-a-half times the legal limit.  He pled guilty to a DWI charge but later filed suit against Tiffany's Restaurant in Toms River under the Dram Shop Act.   For the most part, a person who has been convicted of drunk driving or refusal to submit to a breath test is barred from asserting ANY cause of action for personal injuries, pain & suffering or property damage arising out of an accident related to the drunk driving case. This result is mandated by NJSA 39:6A-4.5.   However, Voss argued that under the New Jersey Dram Shop Act, the law allows him to recover against a bar that improperly furnished him with alcohol – i.e., that he was served when visibly intoxicated.

            The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with Voss stating that existing law does not explicitly bar drunken drivers for suing for their own injuries.   It explained:

An intoxicated person is deterred from driving drunk by losing the right to sue under Title 39 for insurance coverage for his injuries.  On the other hand permitting an injured drink driver to file an action against a liquor establishment and its servers for serving a visibly intoxicated patron also advances the goal of deterring drunk driving.

            Since the ruling, there has been some public reaction in opposition to the Opinion, including pending proposed legislation to specifically overturn such decision and prohibit drunken drivers from suing establishments under the Dram Shop Act. (NJ Assembly Bill 4228 - 2010-2011 Regular Session).

 

 

Edited: SNC 


Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers L.L.P. publishes this site to provide general information regarding certain fields of law to our clients and friends. As every situation is unique and the facts and advice would vary with individual circumstances, the information contained on this site does not constitute legal advice. Transmittal of information from this site or any use of electronic mail is not intended to create or establish an attorney-client relationship between Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers L.L.P. and anyone else. Do not send any information until you speak with one of our attorneys and receive authorization to do so. If any communication from this site is not in conformity with the rules and regulations of any state governing lawyer conduct, Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers L.L.P. will not accept representation which is based on such communication.
 
Mintzer Sarowitz Zeris Ledva & Meyers L.L.P. has offices in Wilmington, DE, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh PA, Wheeling, WV, New York and Long Island NY, Cherry Hill NJ, Miami and Tampa, FL. None of the attorneys listed in this Web site are certified as an "expert" or "specialist" pursuant to any authority governing the practice of law in the State of New York.