Slip Opinion
D.N.J.2017Background
- June 27, 2010: Amy Locane, after performing at Off-Broadstreet Theatre and attending a subsequent cast party, went to a barbecue at Carlos and Rachel Sagebien's home, then drove a 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe owned by her husband Mark Bovenizer and caused a fatal collision. Blood test later showed a 0.268% BAC.
- Off-Broadstreet Theatre provided alcohol at the cast party; the Thicks (theatre owners) and other attendees dispute whether Locane was visibly intoxicated while at the cast party.
- At the Sagebien barbecue, multiple attendees observed conduct (tripping, loud language, repetitive behavior) that some witnesses interpreted as signs Locane was intoxicated; the Sagebiens concede they believed she was intoxicated by the end of the barbecue but did not tell Bovenizer or otherwise prevent her from leaving.
- Locane left the Sagebien home after her husband and children departed; she drove Bovenizer’s SUV, struck another vehicle, then Plaintiffs’ vehicle, killing Helene Seeman and injuring Fred and Curtis Seeman.
- Three summary-judgment motions were filed and decided without oral argument: (1) Off-Broadstreet Theatre moved to dismiss social-host liability; (2) the Sagebien Defendants moved to bar punitive damages; (3) Mark Bovenizer moved on negligent-entrustment, agency, and punitive-damages claims.
- The court denied all three motions, finding genuine disputes of material fact—particularly regarding witness credibility and parties’ mental states—precluding summary judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Social-host liability (Off-Broadstreet) — whether theatre knew Locane was visibly intoxicated when served alcohol | Thicks served alcohol while Locane was or became intoxicated and thus can be liable under NJSHA | Off-Broadstreet argues facts show no knowledge of visible intoxication at theatre; experts and testimony support no visible intoxication then | Denied — disputed facts about timing/visibility of intoxication and witness credibility require jury resolution |
| Punitive damages (Sagebiens) — whether Sagebiens acted with wanton and willful disregard | Plaintiffs: Sagebiens knew Locane was intoxicated and unreasonably failed to ensure she would not drive, supporting punitive damages | Sagebiens: either they did not know she would drive or their conduct does not rise to wanton and willful disregard | Denied — Sagebiens concede knowledge of intoxication but disputes exist about their beliefs and mental state; credibility and intent are for jury |
| Negligent entrustment (Bovenizer) — whether Bovenizer knew or should have known Locane was unfit to drive when he left her with keys/access to his vehicle | Plaintiffs: Bovenizer left Locane with his keys and should have anticipated she was unfit, making him liable | Bovenizer: disputes he knew or should have known of her intoxication at the time; contested facts negate summary judgment | Denied — material dispute over Bovenizer’s knowledge and credibility precludes summary judgment |
| Agency presumption (Bovenizer) — whether Locane was Bovenizer's agent while driving his vehicle | Plaintiffs: driver-of-owner presumption supports agency liability | Bovenizer: contends absence of evidence that Locane acted as his agent rebuts presumption | Denied — rebuttable presumption cannot be overcome on negative inference at summary judgment; issue for jury |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden principles)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and genuine-issue standard)
- Curley v. Klem, 298 F.3d 271 (use of pleadings, discovery, affidavits on summary judgment)
- Mead v. Wiley M.E. Church, 72 A.2d 183 (N.J. 1950) (negligent entrustment doctrine)
- Smith v. Whitaker, 734 A.2d 243 (N.J. 1999) (standard for wanton and willful disregard for punitive damages)
- Hottenstein v. City of Sea Isle City, 977 F. Supp. 2d 353 (D.N.J. 2013) (application of punitive-damages standard under New Jersey law)