[ back ]
DEAN'S LIST - 3/30/2008
(by Dean Naddeo - OpEd Columnist - March 30, 2008)
A blow to personal responsibility
For those of us who still believe in the notion of personal responsibility, last week’s appellate court ruling expanding the legal duty of bar operators is a stinging slap in the face.
A three judge panel opened up a virtual Pandora’s box when it ruled that the operators of a Cape May City tavern could be sued for allegedly allowing an intoxicated customer to drive away from the establishment, even though they had never even served him a drink.
The facts of the case are as follows: Employees at the C-View Inn refused to serve alcohol to an underage customer, who somehow managed to sneak alcohol into his sodas under the table, and who allegedly had consumed alcohol earlier in the night. The man, whose blood alcohol content was later found to be about twice the legal limit, drove away from the bar, causing a fatal car accident. After a Cape May Superior Court judge tossed out the lawsuit, the state appeals court disagreed, and has remanded it back for trial.
New Jersey already has a “Dram Shop Act” that holds the staff of a business that sells alcoholic beverages responsible for ensuring that a person who became drunk there is prevented from driving. This latest ruling expands that liability to include customers who entered the establishment in a state of drunkenness.
The foreseeable impact that this decision will have on bar and restaurant operators is colossal: Staff members will need to expand their training to become experts in the detection of persons under the influence of alcohol – imagine the sight of a young bartender attempting to perform a series of field sobriety tests on a bar room floor. Will tavern owners be forced to administer Breathalyzer tests to every single person entering and leaving the establishment? Or, will they now require the signing of a legally binding hold – harmless agreement by each of their customers? Some businesses may simply close up shop.
Conceivably, the consequences of this ruling may not be limited to just alcohol use in taverns: Will restaurant owners ultimately become liable for drug users – both illegal and prescription – who patronize their establishments? What about the diner waitress who serves scores of buzzing patrons at the end of each weekend bar crawl – will she too be held responsible for her customers’ prior drinking? And how about the convenience store clerk who sells a drunk guy a pack of smokes, or the gas station attendant who fills up the car of an intoxicated person? Will they be too held accountable? The applications are limitless.
Moreover, this puzzling decision drives yet another nail in the coffin of what used to be a core value for all Americans – the concept that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own actions. New Jersey appears to be actively leading the charge to “deputize the world” – to remove all accountability from an individual, and to place that burden on someone else. In recent years, we’ve seen that cumbersome weight placed on the schools, the police and on the government. And as this case clearly signals, it’s now on the local business owner.
Regardless of whatever, or whomever, drove this decision, one thing is for certain – the true benefactors of this ruling will be trial lawyers, who are poised to get richer at the expense of the restaurant and tavern owners across the state. And this is surely no coincidence: Remember, nearly all judges start out as lawyers, and there will always be an unseen tendency to further their own profession.
[ back ]
