Verni Ex Rel. Burstein v. STEVENS, INC.
903 A.2d 475, 387 N.J. Super. 160 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act provides the exclusive remedy for dram shop actions and narrowly defines negligence as serving a visibly intoxicated person. Evidence of an establishment's general 'culture of intoxication,' negligent training, or prior violations of internal alcohol policies is irrelevant and inadmissible to prove negligence.
Facts:
- On October 24, 1999, Daniel Lanzaro attended a New York Giants football game at Giants Stadium.
- Lanzaro consumed two or three beers in the parking lot before entering the stadium.
- Inside the stadium, Lanzaro purchased and drank multiple sixteen-ounce beers from concession stands operated by the Aramark defendants, describing himself as 'drunk' by the end of the first quarter.
- Around halftime, Lanzaro's brother and sister-in-law observed him and concluded he was visibly intoxicated, noting he had a 'blank stare,' was slurring his words, and had a 'very slight sway.'
- After his family observed him, Lanzaro claimed he purchased at least four more beers from a portable cart by tipping the server extra to bypass the stadium's two-beer limit.
- After leaving the stadium and visiting two bars, Lanzaro's vehicle crossed the center line and collided with a car driven by Ronald Verni.
- The collision caused severe, permanent injuries to Ronald's wife, Fazila Baksh Verni, and their two-year-old daughter, Antonia Verni.
- A test administered shortly after the accident 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, Aramark defendants Harry M. Stevens, Inc. (HMS) and Aramark Services Management (ASM), and others.
- The trial judge reserved a pre-trial decision on whether the Beverage Server Act's limitations on liability applied to ASM, the entity that employed the servers.
- During the plaintiffs' case-in-chief, the trial judge allowed the admission of extensive evidence regarding a 'culture of intoxication' at Giants Stadium, including negligent training and supervision, under a common law negligence theory against ASM.
- On the third day of the defendants' case, the judge ruled that ASM was an agent of HMS and that the Beverage Server Act was the exclusive remedy for claims against both, but did not issue a limiting instruction to the jury to disregard the previously admitted evidence.
- A jury found that Lanzaro was served while visibly intoxicated and held the Aramark defendants 50% liable.
- The jury awarded plaintiffs a total judgment against the Aramark defendants of $109,667,750 in compensatory and punitive damages.
- The Aramark defendants (appellants) 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, which provides the exclusive remedy for dram shop claims, bar the admission of evidence regarding an establishment's general drinking environment, inadequate employee training, or prior violations of internal alcohol policies to prove that a server negligently served a specific patron?
Opinions:
Majority - Cuff, P.J.A.D.
No. The New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act bars the admission of such evidence because it narrowly defines actionable negligence as only the act of serving a visibly intoxicated person. The court reasoned that the Act provides the exclusive remedy for dram shop claims, preempting common law negligence theories like negligent training or supervision. Evidence of a 'culture of intoxication,' such as rowdy behavior, prior service violations, or incomplete staff training, is irrelevant to the sole statutory question of whether a particular server served a particular patron who was visibly intoxicated at the time of service. The admission of such broad, prejudicial evidence had the clear capacity to mislead and inflame the jury, distracting it from the central, dispositive issue. Furthermore, this evidence was not admissible under the 'habit' rule (N.J.R.E. 406) because it lacked the specificity and uniformity required to demonstrate a 'semi-automatic' routine practice.
Analysis:
This decision strictly interprets New Jersey's dram shop statute, reinforcing its exclusivity and narrowing the scope of admissible evidence in such cases. By precluding 'culture of intoxication' evidence, the court significantly raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs, who must now focus almost exclusively on direct or circumstantial proof of the patron's visible intoxication at the precise moment of service. This ruling curtails plaintiffs' ability to use a defendant's pattern of poor practices or overall carelessness to infer negligence in a specific instance. Consequently, the case provides substantial protection to licensed alcoholic beverage servers by insulating them from liability based on broader operational deficiencies, forcing future litigation to hinge on the specific facts of the transaction in question.
