60 A.3d 827
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2013Background
- Plaintiffs sued Metz & Associates (T.G.I. Friday's) under the Dram Shop Act for injuries from a drunk-driver crash.
- Act requires proof that the server negligently served a visibly intoxicated person; eyewitness testimony is not statutorily mandated.
- Villamil, the driver, arrived at T.G.I. Friday's between 4:00–7:00 p.m. and left roughly 20–30 minutes before the 9:07 p.m. crash after consuming drinks at the restaurant.
- Police found an odor of alcohol; a blood sample at 10:32 p.m. yielded BAC 0.278%.
- Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Saferstein, opined Villamil would have reached 0.278% BAC by 10:32 p.m. but would have shown visible intoxication as early as 7:30 p.m. if drinking began at 6:30 p.m.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for defendant; appellate court reversed, holding the record could support a jury finding that Villamil was served while visibly intoxicated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Eyewitnesses required for visibility | No eyewitness needed per statute; proof can be circumstantial. | Evidence insufficient without eyewitness testimony. | Eyewitness not required; record supports a fact issue. |
| Sufficiency of evidence to show service while visibly intoxicated | Dr. Saferstein plus direct/circumstantial evidence show visibility at service. | Record fails to prove Villamil was served while visibly intoxicated. | Record, viewed in plaintiff-friendly light, creates a material fact issue for trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mazzacano v. Estate of Kinnerman, 197 N.J. 307 (2009) (no eyewitness requirement inferred from statute; jury may rely on expert and circumstantial evidence)
- Riley v. Keenan, 406 N.J. Super. 281 (App. Div. 2009) (insufficient evidence of visible intoxication and service at bar; no direct proof)
- Salemke v. Sarvetnick, 352 N.J. Super. 319 (App. Div. 2002) (no eyewitness evidence of service; reversed on lack of proof of service while intoxicated)
- State v. Phelps, 96 N.J. 500 (1984) (evidence may be direct or circumstantial; both admissible)
- Truchan v. Sayreville Bar and Rest., Inc., 323 N.J. Super. 40 (App. Div. 1999) (driving behavior can be probative of condition at bar visit)
- Newmark-Shortino v. Buna, 427 N.J. Super. 285 (App. Div. 2012) (circumstantial and direct evidence both viable for proving intoxication)