rscalzo
********
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,303
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #1 |
Once again, the NJ legal system sets the mark as a laughing stock for the rest of the county. A bar does nothing wrong and still is held libel. What a joke.
3/20/08 – 11:23 am] In this morning’s Appellate Division holding in Bauer v. Nesbitt, the Court ruled that New Jersey common law provides a basis for a person who secretly drank alcoholic beverages in a bar to the point of intoxication to sue the bar where he got drunk due to the bar’s negligent failure to protect him from himself. In Bauer case, an underage person entered a bar with a group of friends. While at the bar he ordered Cokes. These drinks were secretly “spiked” with rum under the table by his friends and knowingly consumed by the youth. Although there was no evidence to suggest that the bar ever directly served him any alcoholic beverages, as time went on at the bar, the youth became visibly intoxicated. He subsequently left the bar and operated a motor vehicle that became involved in an accident that killed of one of his passengers. The young driver was ultimately prosecuted, convicted of homicide and sent to prison.
The Appellate Division concluded that while the driver may have no cause of action against the bar under the Dram Shop Act, NJSA 2A:22A-5, New Jersey common law would recognize a cause of action for negligent supervision against the bar. Even when a bar has not knowingly served alcohol to a patron, it has an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that a visibly intoxicated patron will not be injured. Although this cause of action has always been applied in cases involving sexual assaults and other types of violence in bars, as a result of today’s decision, the same common law principles apply in drunk driving cases. In short, regardless of where the drinking occurred, if a jury were to find that the underage drinker was visibly intoxicated while in the bar, it could also conclude that the bar management had an affirmative, common law duty to protect him from the foreseeable risk of injury to himself or others that might flow from an automobile accident
__________________
R. Scalzo
Secaucus PD - Retired 3/05
Now very happy in Epping, NH |
| Loading... | | |
NJFF
********
Registered: 02/14/08
Posts: 1,616
| |
1065
******
Registered: 06/15/04
Posts: 663
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #3 |
unbelievable
__________________
Pain is weakness leaving the body. |
| Loading... | | |
santa1
********
Registered: 10/11/05
Posts: 3,861
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #4 |
Gotta love Jersey!
__________________
LOCKING UP BAD PEOPLE DOING BAD THINGS.
HE WHO BREAKS THE LAW GOES BACK TO THE HOUSE OF PAIN.
POST-MASTER GENERAL...OUT! |
| Loading... | | |
thedonger
***
Registered: 11/16/05
Posts: 129
| |
mudpuppynj
******
Registered: 12/27/06
Posts: 750
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #6 |
WOW
So does this mean we can sue lil johnny's parents when he wrecks his brand new BMW, Mercedes with 300+ horsepower and kills one of our colleagues because they should have known better in providing Johhny a car in which he could drive 130 mph in as young, unexperienced driver, while unsupervised?
Or should we just sue everyone?? I mean really since when are people not accountable for their own actions? Unreal!!
__________________
"The Beatings will continue until Morale Improves" |
| Loading... | | |
rscalzo
********
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,303
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #7 |
That's the point. The one who gave him the alcohol is dead in the MVA.
__________________
R. Scalzo
Secaucus PD - Retired 3/05
Now very happy in Epping, NH |
| Loading... | | |
rscalzo
********
Registered: 10/04/05
Posts: 2,303
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #8 |
That would be "poor grasp OF the English language. Might as well go back into your hovel.
__________________
R. Scalzo
Secaucus PD - Retired 3/05
Now very happy in Epping, NH |
| Loading... | | |
P1230EPD
****
Registered: 08/16/05
Posts: 351
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #9 |
It's always the dead guy's fault........ Oldest defense claim in the book.
__________________
**The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
|
| Loading... | | |
DNQ123
****
Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 322
|
|
| |
Reply with quote | #10 |
Quote: Originally Posted by rscalzoThat would be "poor grasp OF the English language. Might as well go back into your hovel.
3/20/08 – 11:23 am] In this morning’s Appellate Division holding in Bauer v. Nesbitt, the Court ruled that New Jersey common law provides a basis for a person who secretly drank alcoholic beverages in a bar to the point of intoxication to sue the bar where he got drunk due to the bar’s negligent failure to protect him from himself. In Bauer case, an underage person entered a bar with a group of friends. While at the bar he ordered Cokes. These drinks were secretly “spiked” with rum under the table by his friends and knowingly consumed by the youth. Although there was no evidence to suggest that the bar ever directly served him any alcoholic beverages, as time went on at the bar, the youth became visibly intoxicated. He subsequently left the bar and operated a motor vehicle that became involved in an accident that killed of one of his passengers. The young driver was ultimately prosecuted, convicted of homicide and sent to prison.
The Appellate Division concluded that while the driver may have no cause of action against the bar under the Dram Shop Act, NJSA 2A:22A-5, New Jersey common law would recognize a cause of action for negligent supervision against the bar. Even when a bar has not knowingly served alcohol to a patron, it has an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to ensure that a visibly intoxicated patron will not be injured. Although this cause of action has always been applied in cases involving sexual assaults and other types of violence in bars, as a result of today’s decision, the same common law principles apply in drunk driving cases. In short, regardless of where the drinking occurred, if a jury were to find that the underage drinker was visibly intoxicated while in the bar, it could also conclude that the bar management had an affirmative, common law duty to protect him from the foreseeable risk of injury to himself or others that might flow from an automobile accident |
| Loading... | | |
