Verni Ex Rel. Burstein v. STEVENS, INC.
387 N.J. Super. 160, 903 A.2d 475 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under New Jersey's Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act, which provides the exclusive remedy for dram shop claims, liability is determined solely by whether a server served a visibly intoxicated person. Evidence of an establishment's general 'culture of intoxication,' negligent training, or past unrelated violations of alcohol service policies is irrelevant and inadmissible to prove liability for a specific incident.
Facts:
- On October 24, 1999, Daniel Lanzaro consumed several beers while tailgating in the Giants Stadium parking lot before a football game.
- Inside the stadium, Lanzaro purchased and 'guzzled' at least two sixteen-ounce beers during the first half of the game, stating he was 'drunk' by the end of the first quarter.
- Around halftime, describing himself as 'shit-faced,' Lanzaro purchased at least four more sixteen-ounce beers from a portable cart vendor by tipping the server extra to bypass the stadium's two-beer limit.
- Lanzaro then met his brother and sister-in-law, who observed him carrying six beers and noted that he appeared intoxicated, with a 'blank stare look,' slurred words, and a 'very slight sway.'
- After leaving the stadium, Lanzaro drank another beer in the parking lot and drove to two different bars, consuming at least a small amount of additional alcohol.
- At approximately 5:47 p.m., Lanzaro’s vehicle swerved across the road and collided with a car driven by Ronald Verni.
- The collision caused severe, catastrophic injuries to Ronald Verni's wife, Fazila Baksh Verni, and their two-year-old daughter, Antonia Verni.
- A test administered at 6:25 p.m. revealed Lanzaro had a blood-alcohol concentration (BAC) of .266 percent.
Procedural Posture:
- Antonia Verni and Fazila Baksh Verni filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division (trial court), against Daniel Lanzaro, Harry M. Stevens, Inc. (HMS), Aramark Services Management (ASM), and others.
- Prior to trial, plaintiffs settled with several 'football defendants,' including the New York Giants and the NFL.
- The trial court then granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims against these settling defendants and precluding the jury from apportioning fault to them.
- The case proceeded to a jury trial against the remaining defendants, primarily HMS and ASM (the Aramark defendants).
- During the trial, the judge granted plaintiffs' motion to add parent companies Aramark Corporation (AC) and Aramark Sports and Entertainment Group (ASEG) as defendants.
- The jury found that Lanzaro had been served at Giants Stadium while visibly intoxicated and found Lanzaro and the Aramark defendants 50% liable.
- The jury awarded plaintiffs a total of $135 million in compensatory and punitive damages, leading to a judgment of over $109 million against the Aramark defendants.
- The Aramark defendants appealed the judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act permit the admission of evidence regarding an establishment's general 'culture of intoxication,' negligent training of staff, or past unrelated violations of alcohol service policies to prove that a server served a patron while he was visibly intoxicated on a specific occasion?
Opinions:
Majority - Cuff, P.J.A.D.
No. The New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act provides the exclusive remedy for dram shop claims and narrowly defines negligence as the service of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron. The trial court committed reversible error by allowing the admission of a plethora of irrelevant and prejudicial evidence concerning a 'culture of intoxication' at the stadium. This included testimony about general rowdiness, inadequate employee training (such as lack of TIPS certification), and prior, unrelated violations of the stadium's two-beer policy. Such evidence is inadmissible because it does not have a tendency to prove the only fact of consequence: whether Daniel Lanzaro was served alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated on that specific day. The court also rejected the argument that this evidence was admissible to show 'habit' under N.J.R.E. 406, as it lacked the specificity and frequency to demonstrate a 'semi-automatic' routine practice. The admission of this evidence, combined with other procedural errors, had the clear capacity to mislead and inflame the jury, requiring the verdict to be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the strict limitations imposed by New Jersey's Beverage Server Act, clarifying that it precludes plaintiffs from using 'character' or 'culture' evidence to prove liability in dram shop cases. The court's holding solidifies the Act's narrow focus on the singular event of serving a visibly intoxicated person, preventing the expansion of negligence claims into areas like hiring, training, or general business practices. This case serves as a crucial precedent that guides trial strategy, requiring plaintiffs to present direct or strong circumstantial evidence of a patron's visible intoxication at the moment of service, rather than relying on broader allegations of an establishment's irresponsibility. It also underscores the procedural right of a non-settling defendant to have the jury apportion fault to settling tortfeasors.
