Get in touch
SOUTH JERSEY
PHILADELPHIA
FLORIDA

Dram Shop Actions: When a Bar Goes too Far

The Lento Law Group, P.C. • Mar 18, 2021

Now that Saint Patrick’s Day is just around the corner, personal injury attorneys brace themselves for an influx of motor vehicle accident cases involving intoxicated drivers. While most people who are injured in an accident with a drunk driver are aware of their ability to sue the driver for damages, many people do not realize that they may also be entitled to pursue an action against the individual or entity which provided the driver with the alcoholic beverages.


Any server of alcoholic beverages in the State of New Jersey, be they a bar, a restaurant, or even your friend hosting a party, should be well acquainted with New Jersey’s “dram shop” laws.


What is Dram Shop Liability?


In order to understand New Jersey’s dram shop laws, first it would be helpful to understand what a dram shop is. Put simply, “dram shop” is simply an antiquated term for a bar, tavern, or similar commercial establishment where alcoholic beverages are sold.


Pursuant to provisions of the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:22A-1,
et seq.) a person who sustained injuries or property damage as a result of the negligent service of alcoholic beverages by a licensed alcoholic beverage server may recover damages from that licensed alcoholic beverage server under certain circumstances. The law exists to hold establishments that are licensed to serve alcoholic beverages responsible for injuries that result form their negligent service of those beverages to the public.


That said, holding these establishments liable under the act can be difficult as recovery pursuant to the Act is limited to only two unique circumstances:


  1. Where the server of the alcoholic beverage negligently serves a visibly intoxicated person; or,
  2. Where the server of the alcoholic beverage negligently serves a minor and the server knew, or reasonably should have known, that the person served was a minor.


In addition, the party injured as a result of either of these circumstances may only recover if it can further be shown that: 1) their injury was proximately caused by the negligent service of the alcoholic beverages, and 2) that the injury or damage sustained was a foreseeable consequence of the negligent service of the alcoholic beverages.


Additionally, pursuant to the Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act, recovery against the server of the alcoholic beverages is limited to recovery under the Act, as it is the exclusive civil remedy in dram shop cases involving a licensed server of alcoholic beverages. This means that in addition to suing the negligent bar under the Act, you could not then sue them under additional causes of action, such as negligent supervision, for example. Importantly, the “exclusive civil remedy” language of the act should not be confused to mean that recovery as against the negligent bar is the only potential recovery available to the injured party, because of course, they are free to pursue an action against the drunk driver as well.


What about Social Hosts?


Under the New Jersey Social Host Liability Act (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.5 to -5.8) social hosts in New Jersey have a similar duty of care to bartenders. As per the Act, a social host is “a person who, by express or implied invitation, invites another person onto an unlicensed premises for purposes of hospitality and who is not the holder of a liquor license for the premises and is not required to hold a liquor license for the premises under Title 33 of the Revised Statutes, and who legally provides alcoholic beverages to another person who has attainted the legal age to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages.”


In other words, the Act governs adults over the age of 21 who provide alcohol to another adult over the age of 21 at some place other than an establishment licensed to serve alcohol, such as at the person’s home. The Act, therefore, provides that if an adult over 21 hosts a party, for example, and serves alcoholic beverages to their guests who are also over 21 years old, the host can be liable if those guests become intoxicated and cause injury to a third-party. 


Interestingly, unlike licensed establishments, social hosts can also be liable for the self-service of alcohol left out for guests to partake of as they please, and even for alcoholic beverages that guests bring themselves. Holding social hosts liable in these situations highlights the intent behind the Act, that is to place an affirmative duty upon social hosts to maintain control over their intoxicated guests so as to safeguard the public, for example, by letting your drunk friend stay at the party until they sober up.

In all, dram shop liability, whether on the part of a licensed establishment or as a social host is something we should all be keeping in mind whenever the potential for drunk driving exists. If you or a loved one are injured as a result of an accident with a drunk driver, it is critically important to know what your rights are and to have knowledgeable and experienced legal representation. If you have been involved in such a motor vehicle accident, call the Lento Law Group today. Our team of experienced and dedicated attorneys will fight to ensure you receive the financial compensation you deserve!

More News & Resources

By Joseph D. Lento 03 May, 2024
Nurses facing abuse or other misconduct charges over inappropriate patient restraint need skilled defense representation.
By Lawrence A. Katz 26 Apr, 2024
The news has recently had almost daily stories about the social media app, Tik Tok, and Congress’ threat to make using it illegal unless its ownership is transferred from its present Chinese owners. The argument for requiring the removal of Chinses owners is that they require access to personal and confidential information and that poses a national security risk. I have seen tech experts who question whether transferring ownership will actually eliminate that threat. They suggest that if the computer code for the Tik Top app already contains a “backdoor” enabling the secret access to information, changing ownership will not correct the problem. This blog is not intended to discuss those issues. Instead, we will address the claims by many that preventing people from using Tik Tok is a First Amendment free speech violation. I suggest that it is not. This is a tidbit to keep for your next Trivia Night. The First Amendment was originally only intended to prohibit the federal government from interfering with free speech. It was not until 1925, in Gitlow v. New York, that the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibited all levels of government (states and local governments) from interfering with free speech. A government can limit speech if doing so is content neutral. As the United States Supreme Court has explained, “A regulation of speech is facially content based under the First Amendment if it ‘target[s] speech based on its communicative content’—that is, if it ‘applies to particular speech because of the topic discussed or the idea or message expressed.’” City of Austin v. Reagan Nat'l Advert. of Austin, LLC, 596 U.S. 61 (2022). Thus, where a transit system prohibited all advertisements on its premises, the Court held that the limit was constitutional because it applied to all subjects and opinions. In contrast, a limitation on a single message is not permitted. In Ctr. for Investigative Reporting v. SEPTA, 975 F.3d 300, 303 (3d Cir. 2020), a Court of Appeals ruled against a public transit agency’s refusal to accept advertisements that were political or discussed matters of public debate. The regulation was not content neutral. The prohibition against Tik Tok would likely be found constitutional because the prohibition is not based on a specific subject or viewpoint. There is one other issue that must be raised --- it is highly unlikely that a government could prohibit all means of public forums for speech. Even if content neutral, it is unlikely that a government could prohibit all social media any more than it could prohibit all newspapers. However, in the case of Tik Tok, prohibiting it from operating in the United States does not effectively prohibit all means of public forums as several other social media platforms still exist. Thus, the often-voiced opinion that eliminating Tik Tok denies its users their First Amendment rights is inaccurate.
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr 26 Apr, 2024
While dogs are often referred to as “man’s best friend,” dogs can also be dangerous, and even the friendliest of dogs may bite when provoked. This this blog post we will discuss some general legal theory about animal bites, including dog bites, and outline what you should do if you were bit by another person’s dog or other animal. Can I Sue for a Dog Bite? Before I answer this question, it is important to understand the legal theory that undergirds animal bite cases. The law classically categorized animals into two categories: domitae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically domesticated or tamed – and ferae naturae – meaning, those animals that are classically feral, wild, or exotic. This distinction is significant legally because, generally speaking, those who possess a ferae naturae animal – for example, a tiger – do so at their own peril. This is because if ferae naturae animal bites another person, the owner of the animal is generally presumed to be at-fault. While the owner of a domitae naturae animal can also be held liable for the actions of that animal, generally, a bite by such an animal – for example, a cat or a dog – may not necessarily give rise to a presumption of fault. At least, that was the classical framework. This has been changed by individual laws in many states. Most states have adopted a strict-liability standard in connection with dog bites. This means that a biting dog’s owner will be held liable for injuries caused by the dog, even if the owner used reasonable care to restrain the dog or to protect or warn the other party. Often, this strict-liability view can be viewed as harsh, if one adheres to the “accidents happen” mentality. In recognition of the potentially harsh outcomes strict-liability may bring about, a handful of other states have adopted a “One-Bite Rule”. In essence, a One-Bite Rule is a law that provides that a dog owner may only be held liable if they knew or should have known that the dog has a vicious propensity or is prone to bite, and that owner would only have such knowledge if the dog has bitten someone in the past. In other words, the One-Bite Rule is called this because the owner of a dog with a propensity to bite essentially gets their first bite free because the owner will likely not be found liable for the first bite. This is consistent with the notion of the “foreseeability of the harm” that undergirds much of tort law – in other words, how could the owner foresee that his or her dog would bite if it has never done so before? Conversely, the owner should know, and should therefore be held liable, if the dog has bitten someone before. So, to answer the question of whether you can sue if you have been bitten by a dog, the answer, generally is yes, but the merits of you claim will depend largely on whether you live in a strict-liability state or a One-Bite Rule state. What Do I Do If I Have Been Bitten? While you may, of course, be panicked immediately following a dog bite, it is important to do the following: · Call 911 to report the incident. Make sure a police report is filed, and get a copy of it. · Get the dog owner’s name and contact information, if possible. · Try to get a picture of the dog and the owner, if possible. · Take pictures of the bite wounds while they are still fresh. · Go seek medical treatment, if necessary, and try to leave the appointment with a copy of your medical record in connection with the visit. · Contact a knowledgeable personal injury lawyer as soon as possible. If you or a loved one have been injured by a public actor or public entity, call the Lento Law Group today. Our team of knowledgeable and compassionate attorneys and support staff can help guide you while you work to pick up the pieces after a traumatic accident. Call Lento Law Group today at (856) 652-2000. We will fight to get you the recovery you deserve.
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr. 26 Apr, 2024
By Joseph Cannizzo Jr. July 2023
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff 26 Apr, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 20 April, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff 26 Apr, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 April, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
By Jeanilou G.T. Maschhoff, Esquire • 06 March, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
By Lawrence A. Katz, Esquire • 07 Feb, 2024
08 Mar, 2024
Professional discipline in one state can affect a professional license in another state. Don’t run. Get help up front.
01 Mar, 2024
ERIC HAKEEM DEONTAYE MAYS, late Councilman Eric Mays's son and only next of kin, along with Bishop Patrick Munnerlyn, Community Outreach Specialist for the Lento Law Group, cordially invites the Flint community to a candlelight vigil to honor the remarkable life and legacy of Councilman Eric B. Mays. The vigil will take place on Saturday, March 2, at 6:00 PM in front of Flint City Hall, as we come together to celebrate a true hero of Flint, a relentless champion for the community, a visionary leader, a devoted public servant, and a cherished friend. Councilman Mays was a beacon of hope and strength for Flint, advocating tirelessly for the rights and well-being of its residents. His unwavering dedication to serving the community has left an indelible mark on the hearts of all who had the privilege of knowing him. As we gather to remember his remarkable contributions, let us light candles in unity to illuminate the path he paved toward a brighter future for Flint. This vigil is an opportunity for us to reflect on the profound impact of Councilman Mays’ work, to share stories of his courage and kindness, and to reaffirm our commitment to the values he embodied. Participants are welcome to bring their own candles, but candles will also be provided (as long as supplies last) to ensure that everyone can join in this act of remembrance and solidarity. Councilman Mays’ love for the people of Flint was boundless, and in return, he was deeply loved and respected by the community he served. As we mourn his passing, we also celebrate the legacy of a man who dedicated his life to making Flint a better place for all its residents. It has indeed been a sad week in Flint, but let us come together to honor a man who gave so much of himself to our city. Join us in front of Flint City Hall to pay tribute to Councilman Eric B. Mays, a man who deserves the best: our collective love, respect, and admiration. We invite everyone to come and show their support by standing in solidarity as we remember a great man who has left an everlasting mark on our community. Atlanta, GA • Birmingham, AL • Boulder, CO • Coral Springs, FL • Detroit, MI • El Paso, TX • Flint, MI • Honolulu, HI • Los Angeles, CA • Maui, HI Miami, FL • Mount Laurel, NJ • Newark, NJ • New York, NY • Orlando, FL • Philadelphia, PA • Puerta Plata, DR •Richmond, VA • Salt Lake City, UT San Juan, PR • Scottsdale, AZ • Washington, DC 
More Posts
Share by: