NJ: Interesting court case... drivers can sue bars for overserving them!

OFF THE WIRE
http://www.app.com/article/20110602/NJNEWS10/306020006/Court-Brick-man-can-sue-Tiffany-s-Bar-for-over-serving-him

TRENTON — Drunken drivers who get into accidents may sue the taverns where they were overserved, under a split state Supreme Court decision Wednesday in an appeal by a Toms River restaurant being sued by a Brick man.
In a 5-2 decision, the state’s highest court said Frederick Voss, 47, of Brick is not barred by state law from suing Tiffany’s Restaurant on Route 37 in Toms River, where he had been drinking on Nov. 9, 2006 before being injured in a motorcycle accident on Hooper Avenue in Toms River. The ruling upholds a decision issued last year by the state Appellate Division of Superior Court.
Voss’ attorney, William A. Wenzel of Manasquan, said the message is that intoxicated drivers and licensed liquor establishments will be held accountable. Two justices and an organization seeking to curb lawsuit abuse disagreed with the decision.
“Today, drunk drivers can evade personal responsibility for their actions and sue restaurateurs in New Jersey for serving them drinks,” said Ann Marie McDonald, spokeswoman for the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance. The alliance had filed a brief with the court, siding with Tiffany’s.
The case involved two seemingly conflicting laws. One is a 1997 amendment to the state’s automobile insurance law containing a provision precluding intoxicated drivers from recovering damages for injuries in drunken-driving accidents. The other is a 1987 law designed to hold establishments responsible for negligently overserving patrons. The high court majority said, “There is no incompatibility between the two provisions.’’
Chief Justice Stuart Rabner, Justices Virginia Long, Helen E. Hoens and Jaynee Lavecchia, and Judge Edwin H. Stern, temporarily assigned to the Supreme Court, said in their decision that both laws advance the goal of deterring drunken driving.
They said the legal principles of comparative negligence will see that responsibility is apportioned between the drunken driver and the liquor establishment.
Justice Barry Albin wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Roberto A. Rivera-Soto. Albin said the insurance law barring drunken drivers from suing is “crystal clear,’’ and the court’s majority, by its decision in the case, has rewritten it. McDonald agreed.
Voss had been drinking at Tiffany’s for several hours. His blood-alcohol content was nearly 2½ times the legal limit when he ran a red light and was propelled 100 feet upon impact with a car. He suffered multiple fractures and permanent injuries.
Attorney Richard S. Ranieri, representing Tiffany’s, argued before the Supreme Court on March 14 that Voss’ lawsuit against the restaurant should be dismissed based on the provision in the auto insurance reform law. Attempts to reach him were unsuccessful.
Wenzel said the high court’s decision is final. Tiffany’s cannot file an appeal in federal court since the case raises no constitutional issues and involves New Jersey law.