New Jersey Supreme Court Rules Bars May Be Sued By Drunk Drivers

The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court's decision finding that a drunk driver can sue bars that served him alcohol. This may lead to higher costs for bars and taverns across the street as drunk drivers may attempt to go after those who serve them alcoholic beverages:

New Jersey's Supreme Court has ruled a convicted drunken driver has the right to sue the bar that served him.

Wednesday's 5-2 ruling stems from a 2006 motorcycle crash in which Frederick Voss had a blood-alcohol level of .196 percent, or nearly two and a half times the legal limit of .08 percent.

Voss later pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated.

He sued the Toms River restaurant Tiffany's, claiming it negligently kept serving him.

The tavern said the suit isn't allowed under a state law that says people convicted of DWI cannot sue.

The court ruled that law pertains to insurance claims, not to those who serve drinks.

The full case is Voss v. Tranquilinio, A-110-09, 6/1/2011.

The bar was sued by the drunk driver after he was arrested on DUI charges alleging that the bar negligently served him, the state Supreme Court didn't issue a written opinion, but instead adopted the position of the Appellate Division, which affirmed the trial court's rationale that the Dram Shop Act permits a person who sustains damages as a result of negligent service to sue.

The legislative history apparently indicated that the original Dram Shop Act would have prohibited suits by intoxicated drivers or passengers who knew the drivers were intoxicated against servers but that provision was stricken from the final legislation.

Two of the justices dissented, noting that the plain language of N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(b) should bar Voss from suing and that the majority has rewritten a clearly expressed unambiguous statute:

Any person who is convicted of, or pleads guilty to, operating a motor vehicle in violation of R.S.39:4-50, section 2 of P.L.1981, c.512 (C.39:4-50.4a), or a similar statute from any other jurisdiction, in connection with an accident, shall have no cause of action for recovery of economic or noneconomic loss sustained as a result of the accident.

On its face, Voss should have been barred from suing the tavern, but instead the courts are substituting their own judgment for that of the legislature.

Again.

If the legislature intended for drunk drivers to be able to sue those who serve them alcohol, they would have stated it as such. As it is, the state statute above clearly indicates an intention to provide no such right. Just because the legislature doesn't specifically indicate in the legislative history that it meant to specifically address such liability doesn't override the fact that the statutory language is unambiguous. It clearly indicates that such suits are barred.

Expect this issue to again be taken up by the legislature to resolve the court's actions.

FDA Issues Warning Over Alcoholic Caffeinated Beverages

The FDA stopped short of banning products like Four Loko, which are fruit flavored alcoholic energy drinks that include caffeine. However, it issued warnings.

The Food and Drug Administration sent warning letters to four manufacturers of alcoholic energy drinks on Wednesday, saying that it was unsafe to include caffeine in the beverages.

The popularity of the drinks has exploded over the last few months, and there have been numerous reports of young people falling ill after drinking them. A brand called Four Loko — a fruit-flavored malt beverage that has an alcohol content of 12 percent and as much caffeine as a cup of coffee — came under particular scrutiny after students who drank it this fall at Ramapo College in Mahwah, N.J., and Central Washington University in Ellensburg, Wash., ended up in emergency rooms, some with high levels of alcohol poisoning.

On Tuesday, Phusion Projects, the Chicago company that makes Four Loko, said it would stop putting caffeine in the drink. The company’s founders said in a statement that while they still believed it was safe to blend caffeine and alcohol, they wanted to cooperate with regulators.

“We are taking this step after trying — unsuccessfully — to navigate a difficult and politically charged regulatory environment at both the state and federal levels,” the statement said.

Several states, including Michigan and Washington, have banned the drinks on their own in recent weeks, and many more were considering similar action. Last weekend, New York’s largest beer distributors agreed to stop delivering caffeinated alcoholic beverages to retailers by Dec. 10.

It's easy enough to blame the company behind this particular product, but anyone can put together a strong beverage that contains the same ingredients. After all, any number of cocktails pack more alcoholic punch than Four Loko, and high caffeine products have long been available, like Jolt Cola.

It's real easy to scapegoat Four Loko, but it ignores the responsibility of the individual drinker and those who are selling these alcoholic beverages to underage persons. The two cases that the Times cites aren't exactly definitive:

In August, an 18-year-old in Palm Coast, Fla., died after drinking Four Loko in combination with diet pills. The following month, a 20-year-old in Tallahassee, Fla., started playing with a gun and fatally shot himself after drinking several cans of Four Loko over a number of hours.

So, did the beverage cause the death or did the diet pill? Did the person shoot themselves because they were suicidal or depressed or was there something about this particular beverage that was dangerous. Based on the information at hand - there's no evidence to support that. What we can say is that neither person would have been able to purchase the alcoholic beverage because they are under 21. That means that someone was able to purchase the beverages and the store that sold those beverages did not check for ID or were given fake ID.

Moreover, binge drinking remains a problem on college campuses around the country because of a widespread and pervasive issue with alcoholic consumption in the nation that goes back to the temperance movement days. Rather than preaching moderation from an early age, we get a ban that can be easily circumvented so that people who do want to drink underage do so in a culture that doesn't respect moderation. It leads to excess and binge drinking and sends people to the hospital.

First the Pole Tax, Now Alcoholic Beverage Tax Surcharge Proposed by NYS Assemblyman Felix Ortiz

First it was the pole tax. Now, New York Democrat Rep. Felix Ortiz is looking to increase the alcoholic beverages taxes in New York to fund programs that might get axed or reduced by Gov. Paterson.

A state lawmaker unveiled the proposal today for a bill that would tax all alcohol.

State Assemblyman Felix Ortiz says most of the funds generated through the new tax would be used for alcohol and drug abuse treatment and education programs around the state.

Under Governor David Paterson's proposed budget, the state is facing cuts to these types of programs.

Ortiz also claims making alcohol more expensive will help reduce underage drinking.

The text of the bill is here. He and the cosponsors would be looking to impose a $.25 per bottle surcharge on sales of beer, still wine, artificially carbonated sparkling wine, naturally sparkling wine, or liquor sold in the state of New York.

What about cans of beer sold? Why just bottles? That's probably an oversight that will be corrected in an amended version - just imagine the lost revenue if the breweries simply choose to sell by can instead of bottle.

Of course, this would add $1.50 to the cost of a six-pack of beer, including Saranac, Genesee, Blue Point, and Brooklyn Brewing Co (among others) all of which are brewed and distributed in the state (and for which the state already provides tax breaks at NYS Tax Law Sec. 424(6).

How many lost sales will occur because of this, along with the loss of revenues to those companies? Yet, Ortiz is looking to increase taxes in the teeth of a recession.

UPDATE:
Gothamist points out that Ortiz is a nanny-stater of the first order, who had proposed legislation (an unfunded mandate yet) that would require schools to provide the weights of students on report cards.