NJ high court: drunks can sue bars that served them

Although the New Jersey legislature enacted a law in 1997 flatly barring drunk drivers from recovering damages over their own car crashes, the state’s supreme court ruled that because the law did not explicitly override the state’s dramshop (liquor-server liability) law, it would be read as having left it intact. [NJLJ, NJLRA, more]


  • Can murderers sue the shops that sold them guns?


  • A logical conclusion to this ruling is if someone said to a bartender ‘He’s too drunk to be on the road’ without specifically naming the individual, it is as if that statement was never made. Right?

  • When I was in law school in the 50’s we used to joke about “being over served” as an excuse for asinine behavior; apparently the NJ Supremes have decided to adopt this as the rule in the Garden State.

  • What do you expect from what may be the most liberal activist state supreme court anywhere? This is the same court that has invalidated every death penalty that has come before it. Does this mean that a resident of New Jersey who goes into a convenience store, buys a case of beer, drinks the case of beer and then runs face first into a wall can recover damages from that store? Can I, a Texan visiting NJ, gets punched in the face for no reason by that same drunk sue that store?