Posted on 01/22/2005 6:31:49 PM PST by Former Military Chick
A New Jersey jury has assessed $105 million in compensatory and punitive damages against Aramark Corp., the nation's leading arena concessionaire, in the case of a girl paralyzed in a crash with a driver drunk on beer served at a Giants football game.
The father of the victim says the award will make liquor vendors and arenas do a better job of enforcing their rules against selling alcohol to fans who appear to be intoxicated. The evidence in the case against Aramark showed the driver had consumed the equivalent of 16 12-ounce beers, mostly at Giants Stadium in the Hackensack Meadlowlands.
"In a few months, you're going to see major changes in the way concessionaires do business," the plaintiff's father, Ronald Verni of Cliffside Park, N.J., said at a news conference Thursday. "They will need to show more responsibility, and their insurers will insist on it."
On Tuesday, a Bergen County, N.J., jury awarded $60 million in compensatory damages to Verni's paralyzed daughter, Antonia, now 7, and other family members, splitting the liability 50-50 between Aramark and Daniel Lanzaro of Cresskill, N.J., the drunken driver.
On Wednesday, the jury assessed $75 million in punitive damages against Aramark, bringing the company's obligations in the case to $105 million, plus about $6 million in prejudgment interest.
Lanzaro, who had been at a Giants game earlier in the day, struck the Vernis' car as they were driving home from a pumpkin-picking trip on Oct. 24, 1999. Antonia, 2 at the time, is a quadriplegic and needs a ventilator to breathe. Her mother, Fazila, also was seriously injured but has recovered.
Evidence presented during the four-week trial by plaintiffs lawyer David Mazie showed that Aramark vendors repeatedly violated rules against selling more than two beers to a single patron at a time. There were few instances, in what Mazie called "the culture of intoxication" at the stadium, in which drunken patrons were stopped from ordering more drinks, the plaintiffs' evidence showed. "The name of the game was to sell as much beer as possible," he says.
Lanzaro, who settled for his policy limits of $100,000 and is serving a five-year sentence for vehicular assault, testified for the plaintiff that he was served at the game while visibly drunk. Friends and relatives supported his testimony. At the time of the accident, he had a blood alcohol concentration of about .266, twice the legal limit at the time and three times the limit under current law.
The best witness for the plaintiff was Antonia Lanzaro. Her stoic testimony about life in a wheelchair, unable to move her body, and the constant attention required of patients on a ventilator, had the jurors in tears.
Mazie says he knows of no larger dram shop award in the country, and no larger personal injury verdict of any kind in New Jersey. The previous high in the state was a $75.9 million award last November to an infant who became paralyzed after errors in treatment at St. Barnabas Hospital in Livingston, N.J.
At Aramark, in Philadelphia, spokeswoman Debbie Albert said, "We are disappointed by the size of the verdict and intend to appeal.” The company also said in an 8-K filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission Thursday that it has "adequate insurance and other resources to address this matter." Aramark earned $10 billion last year.
Defense counsel Keith Harris of Livingston's Braff, Harris & Sukoneck said in an interview on Thursday that while he can't speak for Aramark about the import of the case, he does believe there are several grounds for appeal.
First, he says Judge Edward Donohue erred by not allowing the jury to consider liability against a club, which Lanzaro visited after the game and where employees poured drinks that Lanzaro and his friends had brought in. The club was dismissed from the case and the judge left it off the verdict sheet on grounds that it was not a dram shop and therefore not reasonably liable, Harris says.
He says the judge should have allowed testimony about two previous drunken driving convictions against Lanzano -- evidence that was ruled to be inflammatory. He says he also is troubled by a ruling that prevented him from telling the jury that Antonia was belted, but not in a car seat, and about a ruling that made it difficult for the defense to pursue cross claims against the Giants and the National Football League.
The team and the league were defendants but they settled for an undisclosed sum and were let out on summary judgment before the trial.
Mazie says he doubts the appeal will be successful, adding that the size of the verdict is unassailable. The punitive damages award of $75 million -- 2 1/2 times the compensatory award -- is well within New Jersey law that caps punitive damages at five times compensatories.
He says the compensatory award is within the $22 million to $42 million range Antonia will need for a lifetime of care, according to testimony by both sides' economic and health care experts.
During Thursday's news conference, Verni said the family would use some of the money to fund stem cell research that might provide a cure for Antonia's quadriplegia, and he called on Aramark to contribute.
I found the following articles on the subject:
60M award to N.J. girl paralyzed by a drunk
Vendors' role in crash goes to jury
Expert: $135M Verdict In Alcohol Case Should Send Wakeup Call To Teams
I have seen folks that appear stone cold sober and should be acting 3 sheets to the wind without incident. I did not allow them to drive but still, they are opposed to know when someone is drunk?
Lets see, someone can pick up a drink for you at the bar, a customer might be going up to the bar to by rounds for his friends, it seems that it places the burden on the bar and not the drunk driver. I fear if more of these judgments come from runaway juries we might have to say good bye to the local bars.
Kind of like the guy who was called to pick up his friend at the MA jail, the police handed the drunk his keys, he appeared to be sober and told him where the car was. He dropped him off at his vehicle and the stupid idiot decided to go to a 7-11 to by more beer, afterwards as he was driving home he hit someone, a USNA graduate killing him along with the drunk driver. Now the person who picked him up at the jail is responsible HOG WASH. If he took him home, who is to say he would not have just turned around and got into his OTHER vehicle and drove to get more beer, seems to me, his actions really show his stupidity and not that of the friend who in the middle of the night, came down at the behest of the police to pick up his friend.
What caught my eye, that the bar had to pay far more than then the family was seeking. I can only imagine the struggle a jury can have looking at the young girl who will NEVER take another breath on her own. The segment showed a brief clip of her and her father and something got stuck in her breathing tube and she began to suffocate, it was frightening and it was on the news, one can only imagine the fear the family has making sure the device does not stop or the tube becoming clogged.
There should be proper redress when someone suffers at the negligence of another, I am just not comfortable with the bar having to pay out the costs. Perhaps I am in the minority but it does bother me.
Oh and do not get me started on wake up calls. Sheesh.
Jumping off soapbox.
Drunk driving judgement == against the bar == awarding in the millions **PING**
Who are these people that sit on these juries and award these ridiculous settlements?
Idiots who are placed in a position to make emotional decisions to ruin people, and make layers rich. Sure, it's terrible that the kid got killed by the drunk driver, but the company selling the beer didn't force the guy to drink or force the guy to drive a car.
Pure BS. I hope they successfully appeal this award.
You are asking the converted, which is why I had posted this article because it really does affect all of us. To pay these judgements the cost goes up to their regular consumers. I am uncomfortable seeking money from the bar because frankly if a cop has to give you a sobriety test to verify if the driver is drunk then I suppose we need to do that same type of test to the customers of the bar. There is just something that does not sit with me, first the bar having to shell out the money and the jury awarding more than they asked for.
I really feel like I am a meany and I do not care about the little girl, but, shouldn't the people who hit her be the ones responsible, I know why, many do not have deep pockets as opposed to the say the vendors at the stadium, this is the direction the lawyers take.
Also, how much did the damn attorney's get... this is really getting me ticked off ... in the heartland. Send snow our way!
And did he drink soda while tailgating for 3 hours before the game? Just wondering out loud, not directed at you.....by no means do I want to shoot the messenger.
Here, here! I'm sorry, but it's entirely the fault of the drunken jerk with the car keys in his hand. How is it that some minimum wage schlub server is supposed to play nanny-bouncer while doing his level best to move customers through the line? He prolly doesn't even bother looking them in the eyes, nevermind taking the time to study their body language. Shouldn't have to.
I am for total tort reform but I say this little girl the other day in the news and it is pitiful....is it worth 105 million.......I don't think so....but saying that, the vendors were pouring this guy beer hand over fist and I think were complicit in his intoxication. He couldn't remember much after 12 beers, his admission, and he drank alot more than that....and she wasn't killed, she is paralyzed with a ventilator and totally helpless. Too much award money for sure but the Aramark vendors sure are in viloation of selling and selling when this guy was obviously fu**** up..............
Sound like the friends and relatives were there if they could testify to the fact that he was served beer while visibly drunk? Nice friends and family.
You bring up some excellent points. He did not drink any soda's at least I doubt it. I do not know who gave the numbers of how many he drank. I mean, he could go to different vendors, his friends could have picked him up a beer and brought it back to him. Do they have cameras over the beer vendors? Do the minimum paid sales clerks really know how to decide if someone is drunk, are they supposed to keep a mental tally of how many beers each fan has, I mean lets just say it, it isn't the drunk drivers fault is it?
I posted a moment ago, cops cannot always tell if someone is drunk, they have tests, is this what they want vendors to do?
Having worked in the bar/nightclub industry for more than 10 years, I got out about the time the lawyers started moving in. Me thinks here is another example why we need tort reform. Go "W" go!!
I had just been thinking that, did the friends of the covicted not notice? I mean, they know him better than the vendors do, shouldn't they have been sued as well, they were an accomplice to his actions that horrible night.
Wow, that's even worse. Poor girl. Too bad Kerry/Edwards didn't get elected, she would be walking now...../bad sarcasm
hand in hand with Chris Reeves no doubt..(even worse sarcasm)
It would be pretty hard to get drunk in my sections. Usually, the only beer to make it to the upper deck is warm Miller Lite. The drunk spectators that I can remember at sporting events arrived that way. How much is ball park beer in your area?
Yes, but there's a rule about selling more than two beers at a time to a fan, and the vendor tool a $10 bribe and sold him six at a time, even though they knew it was wrong and against the stadium rules.
Liability of bars varies according to the laws of each state, as well as the circumstances of the case. From Lawyers.com--with the caveat that the site is sponsored by lawyers:
Are you or a family member the victim of a drunk driver who went bar-hopping before driving intoxicated? Were you assaulted as a bystander by a drunk patron in a bar fight or a brawl outside a tavern? You may have a right to sue the bar under what are called “dram shop” laws.
Many states hold commercial vendors of alcohol (bars, taverns and package stores) responsible for injury caused by drunk patrons. Different laws apply to social hosts and employers throwing office parties (internal links).
A drunk person cannot collect for injury to himself, but a third party injured by the actions of a drunk person can collect from a bar or tavern under certain circumstances. This is especially important when the drunk person has little or no insurance to cover a serious or fatal injury.
Laws in most states require the injured person suing a commercial alcohol vendor to prove that the serving of alcohol was a “proximate cause” of the injury. In other words, you must show a provable connection between your injury and the drunk person’s act of drinking at that particular bar or tavern.
Laws vary widely by state. In Nevada, commercial vendors won’t be held responsible for injuries caused by drunk patrons, probably because of the devastating impact it would have on the tourist industry. In some states, commercial vendors will only be held responsible for serving alcohol to minors.
In other states, the amount of damages that can be collected from a commercial vendor is capped at a specific amount, under the theory that the major share of blame for the injury should be placed on the drunk person.
Most states hold a commercial vendor liable where:
Alcohol was served to a minor
*The vendor was reckless in serving or should have realized *The extent of the patron’s intoxication
*The vendor sold liquor without a liquor license
*The vendor sold liquor after hours
*The burden of proof is lower when a bar or tavern has served a minor, as it’s illegal.
The test for deciding whether a bar employee should have realized the extent of a patron’s intoxication is fuzzy. Courts look at the condition of the drunk person, and whether it should have been “foreseeable” to a bar employee serving him or her that the person was already “visibly intoxicated” and shouldn’t be served any more alcohol. It’s not a matter of how many drinks the person has had, but how the alcohol has affected them.
Proving Excess Intoxication
So how do you prove the person who injured you or your family member was “visibly intoxicated?” Some states have tried to clarify this vague test by requiring proof that the drunk person demonstrated “significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction.” In other states, you must prove that the bar patron was so obviously intoxicated that he presented a “clear danger to himself and others.”
If you or someone you love has been injured by a drunk person whom you suspect may have been served alcohol by a commercial vendor before the injured occurred, it’s important to see a lawyer right away. Proving the obvious intoxication of a bar patron often requires eyewitness testimony of other bar patrons and employees. A lawyer can locate and interview these witnesses quickly, and get witness statements right away while they still remember accurately what happened and before they clam up.
The time limit for filing a legal action against a commercial vendor- called a “statute of limitations”- is often very short. So it’s very important to develop and file your legal action quickly in order to collect. Bar Liability for Alcohol Injuries - from Lawyers.com
He can begin by follwing the stadium rules. The rules were the he not sell more than two beers to a person at a time. He accepted a $10 bribe to sell all six anyway. Had he simply said "no" and told the guy to "move along" the jury would not have found them liable. That's how.
It also says that he was with his friends and relatives. How would the vendor know he wasn't buying for his friends?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.