Rhode Island Injury Lawyer Blog

I found this interesting article on the legal blog watch. Following my recent post about the Red Room and liquor liability, comes news that a New Jersey Appellate Court has now ruled that drunk drivers, injured in an auto accident of their own causing, can now sue the bar or club that served them despite obvious intoxication.

I suspect that such a ruling will be shot down at the Supreme Court level or overturned by the legislature, not necessarily because the reasoning is flawed, but because public policy demands it. In fact, the ruling is already in conflict with a New Jersey law that states a driver convicted of DUI shall have no cause of action over his or her injuries. A reading of the decision shows that the Court gave greater weight to the Dram Shop Act than to the above stated law. The NJ Dram Shop Act, similar to our own, indicates that ANYONE injured as a result of the negligent service of alcohol may have an action against the licensed provider of that alcohol. The New Jersey Appellate Court reasoned that there is no bar to ANYONE including the drunk driver.

Drunk drivers are often vilified because it is well known that it is a reckless and dangerous activity that puts peoples lives at risk. This is indisputable. Unfortunately, one of the effects of alcohol is to reduce our ability to reason and use proper judgment. Isn't it reasonable, therefore, to hold the negligent server of alcohol responsible since they profit heavily from increased intoxication. Please know that I am only playing devil's advocate here, and I understand that a reasonable person would cut himself off before he gets to a point in which he can no longer drive.

I found this ruling interesting. It expands the scope of the Dram Shop Act, and I believe rightfully so. That is not to say that drunk drivers should be awarded for their reckless behavior, but a licensed vendor of liquor, an intoxicating and dangerous drug, needs to be more carefully regulated and held responsible when they place profits over safety. Again, I imagine that this ruling will be overturned for public policy reasons - but it is interesting nonetheless.

Continue reading "Will New Jersey Allow Drunk Drivers to Sue the Bars That Served Them?" »

Yesterday I wrote a post about a Virginia Supreme Court decision imposing liability on the hosts of a sleepover following a fatal auto accident. The parents of the victim had requested that their daughter not be allowed to ride in any car with teenage boys, and the Court imposed liability on the hosts for failing to follow through with that instruction and for failing to adequately care for their guest.

I began thinking that the Rhode Island Supreme Court would almost definitely deny such a claim. Rhode Island is among the States which do not recognize social host liability. Ferreira v. Strack, 652 A.2d 965, Willis v. Omar, 954 A.2d 126. Social host liability laws hold hosts and homeowners responsible for injuries sustained by a third party as a result of their actions. For example, if a homeowner throws a party in which a person becomes severely intoxicated and later kills a person in a car accident, the homeowner would be responsible for the role they played. It is dram shop liability on the homeowner.

Rhode Island, however, fails to recognize this liability because the Supreme Court does not believe that the host owes a duty to an unrelated third party. Rhode Island will only impose social host liability if the homeowner allows underage drinkers to become intoxicated or provides alcohol to minors which later results in a tragic accident. This law is relatively recent and is a product of the legislature. The Supreme Court has often stated that it defers to the legislature in establishing new causes of action. Therefore, social host liability will never be imposed in RI unless the legislature drafts such a statute.

I realize the Virginia case does not compare factually to the long line of RI cases denying social host liability, but I can only project that the RI Supreme Court, faced with a similar case, would reject this theory of liability.

Providence's favorite dive bar has been in the news for all the wrong reasons lately. News continues to come out about the young Massachusetts man who lost his life following a night at the Red Room. (I am omitting the young man's name out of respect for the family).

Rhode Island, like many States, has pretty tough liquor liability laws. RI General Law 3-14-6(b) holds a defendant venue (in this case, The Red Room) responsible for the damages done to a person to whom they served alcohol even though they knew or should have known was intoxicated.

The projo continues to relay facts about this case which shows that all of the friends the victim was traveling with were highly intoxicated and fighting with each other in the parking lot. Furthermore, the news reports that the group took a cab directly to the Red Room suggesting that this was the only venue they visited that night. Therefore, the Red Room will have a tough time arguing that they are not the cause of the heavy intoxication.

The bar may be held responsible for the damages that their actions caused. Liquor stores, bars, and restaurants, profit heavily from serving alcohol (a clearly dangerous drug when abused) but are held responsible when they place profits over safety. The Red Room, like any bar has an obligation to ensure that alcohol is consumed safely.

I'm sure you have walked into a bar or restaurant which told you, much to your chagrin, that they will not serve shots or five liquor drinks, aka Long Island Iced Tea. Those venues are afraid of the nightmare scenario that the Red Room now faces.

I am sure that a great deal of facts will continue to come out in the coming weeks which will shed light on what actually happened that evening. My condolences to the friends and family.

Continue reading "The Red Room is Probably Just Waiting for a Massive Lawsuit" »

In the world of interesting injury lawsuits comes one from Tennessee.  A college student is suing the Coyote Ugly Saloon, made famous by the movie of the same name and known for women dancing on top of the bar, after she fell off the makeshift dancefloor striking her head.

I would be quite astonished if this was the first time the bar was sued for such an event.  The situation does present interesting liability questions.  According to the plaintiff, she was encouraged to climb on to the bar by employees of the club.  She claims to have fallen because the bar top was slippery with drinks.  So it sounds like a great liability claim until we consider that she is a college student in a bar.  I'm going to guess that defense will argue she was bombed.  Then again, all the more reason for the employees to keep her from dancing on the bar.

Here's wishing her a quick recovery.