Over the past several decades, the general public has learned an enormous amount about the dangers of drinking and driving.  In New Jersey accident victims involved in a collision with a drunk driver may have a cause of action against a licensed alcoholic beverage server who serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person pursuant to the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act, N.J.S.A. 2A:22A-1 to 7, commonly referred to as the Dram Shop Act.  The Dram Shop Act was “designed to protect the rights of persons who suffer loss as a result of the negligent service of alcoholic beverage by a licensed alcoholic beverage server while at the same time providing a balanced and reasonable procedure for allocating responsibility procedure for allocating for such losses.”  N.J.S.A. 2A:22A-2.

Recently, the New Jersey Appellate Division examined whether a cause of action under the Dram Shop Act requires eyewitness testimony to prove a person was served an alcoholic beverage while visibly intoxicated.  That case, Halvorsen v. Villamil, 429 N.J. Super. 568 (2013), involved a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 10, 2008 after defendant, Gregory Villamil consumed alcohol at a T.G.I.F. Friday’s and negligently rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle causing severe injuries to both parties.  Defendant’s blood alcohol level was later determined to be 0.278.  Plaintiff sued T.G.I.F. Friday’s under the Dram Shop Act even though there was no eyewitness testimony to support the contention that defendant was served alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated at T.G.I.F. Friday’s.  Defendant, T.G.I.F. Friday’s moved for summary judgment and the trial judge granted same.

On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed by concluding that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence to create an issue of fact as to whether defendant was served alcohol while visibly intoxicated despite the fact that plaintiff did not offer eyewitness testimony.  The Halvorsen Court reasoned that the Dram Shop Act does not contain language mandating that a plaintiff produce an eyewitness to prove that a person was served alcohol by a licensed server while visibly intoxicated.  Additionally, the Appellate Division relied on defendant’s own testimony that he only consumed alcohol at T.G.I.F. Friday’s and that defendant testified at the accident scene that he felt no pain despite suffering severe injuries.  Also critical to the Appellate Division’s analysis is the fact that the defendant began to drive erratically shortly after leaving T.G.I.F Friday’s.  The Halverson case is an important decision for those who are injured by a drunk driver since the lack of eyewitness testimony is not necessarily fatal to their Dram Shop Action.

For over 30 years, the personal injury attorneys at Ginarte Gonzalez Winograd L.L.P., have been fighting for the rights of accident victims.  Our attorneys have successfully litigated all sorts of personal injury cases such as Dram Shop actions, products liability, work-place accidents, auto, and premises liability.  If you have been involved in an accident, please call 1-888-(GINARTE) or use our online contact form.