More Protection for Drunks

John G. Soronen, a New Jersey diamond setter, began belting the bottle first thing in the morning. He was still at it in the early afternoon, when he walked into the Olde Milford Inn and tossed off two jiggers of whisky and three glasses of beer. A little later, he got up from his bar stool, staggered a few steps and fell, fracturing his skull against a steel column. He died that night.

Soronen's wife sued the inn and James Frei, the bartender who served her husband, charging that they had negligently caused her husband's death by selling him whisky when he was visibly drunk. The defendants denied responsibility, claiming that Soronen was not "a visibly intoxicated person" when he entered the Olde Milford Inn--an observation that was supported by the testimony of several patrons. But what if Soronen was drunk? the defendants went on. That would have made his accidental death the result of his own "contributory negligence." In either case, Frei and the tavern argued, they were not liable for damages.

The jury returned a sizable verdict for Edith Soronen, and the defendants appealed. A tavern may be liable to an innocent third person injured by a drunk whom it has helped to tank up, but must it also be its pickled brother's keeper? defendants asked. Yes, the New Jersey Supreme Court said last week. "Contributory negligence is not available as a defense to a liquor licensee who has sold alcoholic beverages to a visibly intoxicated person." Quoting a lower court approvingly, Judge Nathan Jacobs said that the law barring sales to drunks would be "meaningless, if a tavernkeeper could avoid responsibility by claiming that it was the person's own fault if he drank too much." Those who obtain liquor licenses "do so with the full awareness that the public is entitled to receive high measures of protection from abuses."

As for the contention that such a ruling will "impose an undue burden" on tavernkeepers, the judge was unimpressed. He could see nothing but a benefit to "the public interest" if Jersey tavernkeepers obey the law and exercise reasonable care about whom they serve. However, because the trial judge made errors in his instructions to the jury, the case was sent back for a new trial.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.