Posted On: June 19, 2011

Court Says It’s Okay for Drunk Drivers to Sue Bars

Earlier this month the New Jersey Supreme Court issued a divisive ruling that, in effect, allows drivers convicted of driving under the influence to sue the bars that served them. (1)

The split decision (5-2) relates to a 2009 lawsuit filed by Frederick Voss against Tiffany’s Restaurant, Toms River, NJ. According to that suit Mr. Voss, who was driving a motorcycle, was involved in an accident after he had been drinking at the restaurant. Voss, who had a reported blood alcohol level of 0.196, pleaded guilty to driving under the influence. The legal alcohol limit in New Jersey is 0.08. (1)

Although he pleaded guilty to the DUI, Voss sued the owner and driver of the car that hit him, as well as the restaurant for continuing to serve him even though he clearly was intoxicated. An Ocean County Superior Court judge dismissed the actions against the car’s driver and owner citing a 1997 statute that prohibits anyone convicted of drunk driving from suing for damages. The judge, however, allowed the action against the restaurant citing the State’s dram shop laws, which were adopted some ten years earlier. (2)

Dram shop laws (so named from the colonial era practice of serving alcohol by units of liquid measure) state that servers and the owners of establishments that serve alcohol can be held financially responsible for injuries or property damages caused by an intoxicated customer’s action, including drunk driving. (3)

At issue in this case is whether the 1997 statute repeals the older dram shop laws. The majority Supreme Court decision claims it does not, noting that both aim to reduce the incidents of drunk driving.

Under the 1997 statute, injured drunk drivers are denied the right to sue for insurance coverage of their injuries – a measure designed to deter drunk driving under automobile insurance reform. The dram shop laws also act as a deterrent by holding liquor establishments accountable for the actions of their patrons whose judgment may be impaired due to their alcohol consumption. (2)

Two dissenting justices stated that the 1997 statute clearly bans drunk drivers from suing anyone in connection with accidents they may have as a result of their drinking. The majority opinion, however, contends that the 1997 statute pertains only to automobile insurance matters and was not intended to supersede the dram shop laws. (2)

(1) http://www.northjersey.com/news/crime_courts/crime_courts_news/NJ_court_Drunk_driver_can_sue_bar_that_served_him.html
(2) http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202495836070&rss=nj&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
(3) http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-dram-shop.html

Bookmark and Share

Posted On: June 5, 2011

Condo Association Settles Discrimination Complaint

When a South Jersey woman fell behind on her maintenance fees and her condominium association responded by revoking her privileges to certain amenities, she filed a discrimination complaint. The condo association is now expected to pay $10,000 in settlement of that complaint. (1)

Mary Lou Frisch was in arrears on her monthly maintenance fees since January of 2007. In November 2008, Mays Landing Village Condominium Association suspended Ms. Frisch’s rights to use certain common areas, including the parking lot - hence the problem. (2)

Ms. Frisch suffers from a debilitating lung disease, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. When she could no longer use the development’s parking lot, she had to park off premises and walk the distance between her car and her condo – sometimes close to a mile. Prior to losing her privileges, Ms. Frisch, who has a handicapped parking permit issued by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, used a handicapped space close to her unit. (2)

According to Ms. Frisch, the change in her parking arrangements aggravated her medical condition. She wrote a letter to the Association asking for reinstatement of her parking rights. The Association denied the request, so Ms. Frisch filed a complaint with the Division on Civil Rights claiming the Association was discriminating against her by not accommodating her illness. (1)

The Association cited its by-laws as evidence that it acted within its rights to revoke Ms. Frisch’s privileges, including voting and membership rights, access to the tennis courts, swimming pool and parking lot, among other things. The Division, however, ruled the Association failed to show that Ms. Frisch’s request was unreasonable or that allowing her to use the parking lot would cause the Association undue hardship. (1)

In settlement of the complaint, the Association has agreed to, among other things, pay Ms. Frisch $7,528; pay her maintenance fees in the amount of $2,472 for the next year; forgive Ms. Frisch’s outstanding maintenance fees estimated at somewhere between $12,000 and $15,000; and pay $5,000 in costs to the Division on Civil Rights. Additionally, the Association will allow the Division to monitor any requests for accommodation it receives over the next two years and have certain of its officers participate in training sessions on the State’s Law Against Discrimination. (1)

The Division on Civil Rights is the State agency responsible for looking into complaints of discrimination specifically in the areas of public accommodation, employment and housing. (3)

(1) http://www.nj.gov/oag/newsreleases11/pr20110601a.html
(2) http://www.newjerseynewsroom.com/state/mays-landing-condo-association-found-to-have-discriminated-against-disabled-woman
(3) http://www.state.nj.us/lps/dcr/about.html


Bookmark and Share