Beer vendor sued

[Mustaine]

interesting story...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/ap_on_re_us/beer_vendor_sued

Court nixes verdict against beer vendor By BETH DeFALCO, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 58 minutes ago
 
TRENTON, N.J. - An appeals court on Thursday overturned a landmark $105 million verdict against a stadium vendor that sold beer to a drunken fan who later paralyzed a girl in an auto wreck.

Ordering a new trial, the three-judge state appeals panel said the trial court improperly allowed testimony about the "drinking environment" at the 1999 football game at Giants Stadium.

The family claimed that vendors for Philadelphia-based Aramark Corp. continued to sell beer to Daniel Lanzaro during a 1999 New York Giants game even though he was clearly drunk, and that the concessionaire fostered an atmosphere in which intoxicated patrons were able to still buy alcohol.

Hours later, Lanzaro, then 34, caused the wreck that paralyzed then-2-year-old Antonia Verni from the neck down.

"The admission of this evidence cannot be considered harmless. A central theme of plaintiffs' case was the culture of intoxication at the stadium," the court wrote in its 65-page ruling.

Last year, a state judge in Hackensack rejected an effort by Aramark to throw out the verdict or reduce the January 2005 judgment by a Bergen County jury.

The jury said Lanzaro and Aramark should pay a total of $135 million in damages. At the time, legal experts said it was the largest alcohol liability award in the United States in at least the last 25 years.

Aramark's portion of that award was $30 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages.

"While we are saddened by the injuries suffered by Antonia Verni, we are gratified by today's court decision," Aramark spokeswoman Debbie Albert said Thursday.

David Mazie, an attorney for the girl's family, said the ruling will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Mazie said the reversal was based on technicalities and not the amount of the damages. Still, he called the decision troubling.

"The Supreme Court can't allow the verdict to remain," Mazie said. "It's a major societal issue."

The appeals court also said that jurors should not have been told that they could consider and provide compensation for the girl's shortened life expectancy. An economist had testified that the girl will need $42 million worth of care over the rest of her life.

However, the court said a new jury can consider whether other defendants previously excluded can also be held responsible in the case. Those defendants include the National Football League, two bars where Lanzaro drank after the game and a friend of Lanzaro's who drank with him on the day of the accident.

Lanzaro is serving a five-year prison term after pleading guilty to vehicular assault. He settled with the family for $200,000 in insurance money to pay his portion of the damages.

Lanzaro — who had a blood-alcohol level of .226, nearly three times the legal limit — testified he bought six beers at halftime even though he said he had already drunk at least six during the first half and was slurring his speech.

personally I find it wrong that the stadium vendor was the target considering the BOLD text I highlighted.

I do agree it is a shame about the injury, and I am saddened for the girl, there is no monatary ammount to cover human life or anything like that, but who ultimately is responsible? I almost compare this to a fat person suing McDonalds, as is it really their fault? we are each accountable for our actions.

think about this too, how is a stadium beer vendor to know if a person is legally drunk, and if they are driving? a bartender at an actual bar I think would have a better eye for that situation. why weren't the bartenders and bars listed as accountable in the suit?

money. large company has it, make them pay.

[FUNKED1]

beer ain't even ****in drinkin
whaddaloadacrap

[Mickey1992]

It's not against the law to sell a fat person their 12th hamburger, however it is against the law to sell alcohol to an intoxicated person.

That said, why is the vendor the target when the idiot drank at two additional bars after leaving the stadium?  Could it be that the vendor is a multi-million dollar company?

[PuckIt]

Could it be that the vendor is a multi-million dollar company?

Bingo, we have a winner! Took the works right off my keyboard. They wouldnt get 0.000000001% of that figure from the person at real fault.

[LePaul]

As I posted in the bartending thread a week ago...as a server, manager or employee of a restaurant...if someone does something stupid after you gave the person so much as a drop...they'll try to come back at you and sue you....dodging any method of personal responsibility.

This is a victim's hunt for the biggest wallet.

You wait...they'll go after the NFL

[john9001]

the lawyers always look for the deep pockets, they should sue the american people for the repeal of prohibition, then they could get the BIG money.

tort reform

[FBplmmr]

so now its the bartnders fault i got a dui .. should he go do my community service etc?

heck its a "surprise" that cigarretes are bad for you ? sue about that too.. doesnt matter that they were called "coffin nails" in the 50s .. you smoked em now and you can sue !    and just who the hell expected coffe to be hot!  theres a lawsuit!
ya cant fix stupid... but apparently you can sue becuase of it!


wtf is wrong with people in america ?  

they promised me flying cars and that the west coast would drop into the ocean from an earthquake by 2000.. dammit I'm still waiting

[Shamus]

Originally posted by john9001
the lawyers always look for the deep pockets, they should sue the american people for the repeal of prohibition, then they could get the BIG money.

tort reform

Thats right!! the little girl was in the wrong place at the wrong time, she should get nothing..as a matter of fact her parents should be be held resposible for the vendors legal bills.

shamus

[LePaul]

Shamus, where does one stop?

Someone does something stupid, where does the responsibility *start* ?  And where does it stop?

Guy that hits the girl is probably a working schmoe.  Probably has insurance...but that has a limit.  So you go after the server.  Yada yada...

Did you *SEE* the part where the moron drank AT OTHER PLACES after the stadium?  Funny how they pick and chose whom to go after

The sad fact is, you can agree this is a sad incident.  But going after a stadium, that's several parts removed...just to grab $105 million doesnt strike you as a bit much??

[Eagler]

I am all for requiring possible drunks to be required to blow before they are allow to purchase additional alcohol. If they blow past the legal limit, they are cut off. Once"drunk", the person may not, usually doesn't make a proper choice and stop drinking, the vendor should have the responsibility of not selling him more drinks making money for the vendor while making the customer more intoxicated and thus more a danger to himself and others.
I'd sued the bars he visited as well as the stadium vendor  ... I'd sued them right after I torched their bars...after i wheeled my daughter up to their general managers showing how their $5 drink profits changed so many lives..
If I had a party at my house at which I served alcohol and someone left drunk and had an accident, I could & probably would be sued. What is the difference? Hosting the party, serving the drinks, I have a responsibility to the rest of the community, not to let someone who has obviously had too much to drink to get in their car and drive. The only difference I see is the fact I would not be making money whereas a bar/stadium is which if anything should increase their liability.
how are you trying to compare a fat person eating a hamburger to this? The only person the fat arse could kill/harm would be himself. I do not see the comparison.

[Shuckins]

Not attacking the right of anyone to drink but we have some insane notions about drinking in this country...

...like serving all the beer one can drink to a crowd of 100,000 people at an athletic stadium (Yeah...I know...they don't ALL drink) and then turning them loose on the highways to drive home.

...Or that vendors should bear no responsibility for selling booze to a man who is already obviously intoxicated.

...or that drunks are "funny" and simply misunderstood.

...or that some of the violence present after certain controversial athletic contests is somehow unrelated to the number of intoxicated spectators at the event.




Certainly the individual should bear much of the responsibility for his/her own state of intoxication...but those that market the stuff to people under questionable circumstances shouldn't get a free pass.

[Shamus]

Originally posted by LePaul
Shamus, where does one stop?



Did you *SEE* the part where the moron drank AT OTHER PLACES after the stadium?  Funny how they pick and chose whom to go after

 

Did you *SEE* where the OTHER PLACES were DISMISSED from the lawsuit?, sounds like they were went after as well, I don't call that picking and choosing, hard telling why they got out without reading the motions.

shamus

[Furball]

there will be more trouble if you STOP serving people at a game.

imagine the lawsuits when thousands of fans start a riot over lack of beer!

[Mustaine]

Originally posted by Shamus
Did you *SEE* where the OTHER PLACES were DISMISSED

dismissed and excluded are 2 different things. you make it sound as the original judge said they can't sue the bars or something...



i took it as they were EXCLUDED from being listed as a defendant in the first place.


we don't know all the details of the case, but my whole point of posting this was to point out how people can be greedy any time, and will go for the julgular of the cash veins whenever they can. when I first read the story I thought the settlement was extremely excessive, and I felt the simple beer vendor at the stadium was not "at fault" at all. they were just named because some ambulance chaser lawyer saw a new porsche in the case.