Posts Tagged ‘alcohol’

$105 million against stadium beer vendor

Servers at Giants Stadium in northern New Jersey sold beer to a highly intoxicated patron, so a jury has ordered Aramark, the beer concessionaire, to pay $30 million in compensatory and $75 million in punitive damages to pay for the later acts of the drunkard, who after leaving the game drove off into a catastrophic accident. (Ana M. Alaya, “Jury adds $75 million penalty for beer seller”, Newark Star-Ledger, Jan. 20; David Voreacos, “Aramark loses big in lawsuit”, Bloomberg/Philadelphia Inquirer, Jan. 20). The plaintiff’s lawyer in the case (see Oct. 10, 2003) had asked for damages against the National Football League and the Giants as well, but according to KipEsquire (Jan. 20) those claims were dismissed, or else the award might have been really big. Correction: the jury’s compensatory verdict was split $30 million against Aramark and $30 million against the drunk driver; we originally reported that the entire award was against Aramark, but have fixed the references above.

More: New Jersey Law Journal, Jan. 21, reports that the NFL and Giants paid an undisclosed settlement to be let out of the case, though they also prevailed on a summary judgment motion; and it turns out that Daniel Lanzaro of Cresskill, N.J., the drunk driver, drank at a club with friends after leaving the stadium but before getting into the crash. Yet more: AP adds that “The NFL forbids beer sales after the third quarter, and the Giants close beer concessions at the start of the third quarter. The stadium also mandates that fans can buy only two beers at a time, but the Vernis’ lawyers contend that Lanzaro sidestepped that rule by giving the vendor a $10 tip and was allowed to buy six beers.” And according to the New York Post, “Giants Stadium officials intend to aggressively monitor tailgating and drinking” (emphasis added) in the aftermath of the verdict. Update: Feb. 2.

Guest Blogger Emerges

Hello folks, my name is Jim Leitzel and I generally hang out at Vice Squad. But the Overlawyered denizens have been kind enough to share their pixels with me this week, so here I am. I’ll probably talk mostly about vice, but I am an economist, not a lawyer, so I won’t be able to hold up my end of the lawyerly dialogue.

I’ll start with a quiz (though I won’t vouch for the correctness of my suggested answer). Imagine that you are concerned about three U.S. health-related problems: suicide, cancer, and sexually-transmitted diseases. Alas, you are limited to implementing only one policy reform. What should you do? To build suspense (is it working?), I’ll put my suggestion after the break…

Read On…

Muslim trucker: you can’t make me haul beer

In Nashville, Tenn., Ibrahim Barzinji has sued his former employer, Arkansas-based J.B. Hunt Transport Inc., on the grounds that asking him to transport alcoholic beverages violated his religious beliefs. Barzinji, who is representing himself in the case, “said he had just trucked a load of auto parts from Clarksville to St. Louis on June 26 last year when he was asked to pick up a return load at the Anheuser-Busch plant.” He informed his supervisor that he was refusing to handle the cargo, and was dismissed. “A local labor and employment attorney said that, to prove his case, Barzinji would have to convince a judge or jury that asking to be assigned a different load was reasonable and would not cause undue hardship on the company.” The issue has come up before in a somewhat different context: “Muslim cab drivers at the Minneapolis airport several years ago began refusing to pick up passengers who carried duty-free alcohol, said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group.” (Anita Wadhwani, “Fired Muslim truck driver sues employer”, The Tennessean, Jun. 23).

Update: another alcohol suit

Piling on in search of a Next Tobacco: “A lawsuit filed in Los Angeles [earlier this month] against the world’s two biggest brewers accuses the beer makers of advertising to minors and seeks $4 billion in disgorgement of profit.” The suit, filed by Seattle’s Hagens Berman, whose doings are oft chronicled in this space (see Sept. 9-10, 2002 and links from there, Nov. 24) targets Anheuser-Busch and SABMiller. It invokes California’s distinctively abuse-prone s. 17200 law (see Dec. 8), as well as a California law which bans alcohol advertising intended to encourage underage drinking. (Ira Teinowitz, “$4 Billion Lawsuit Filed Against Beer Giants”, Advertising Age, Feb. 4) (lawsuit website/complaint in PDF format). Two months ago, lawyers led by David Boies filed a would-be class action against a number of alcohol companies over alleged youth marketing (see Dec. 1)

“Lawsuit alleges alcohol marketed to teens”

The lawsuit, which seeks class-action status, was filed by the Armonk, N.Y. firm of Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP and by “David Boies III, of the Fairfax, Va., law firm Straus & Boies,” who is the son of Boies Schiller’s David Boies (Nov. 6, earlier cites). Although it claims not to be (yet) a broad-scale assault on the liquor industry a la tobacco, the suit seeks to recover “unlawful profits” made by Coors, Heineken, Brown-Forman, Diageo, and others for such supposed atrocities as employing the Captain Morgan character to sell rum and advertising in rock music magazines. Also being sued is the trade association The Beer Institute. (AP/Salon, Nov. 26). As we noted in July, liquor companies “have been curiously absent from the list of targets of mass litigation campaigns in the U.S.A. in recent years; but see Mar. 22, 2000.”

Juan Non-Volokh notes (Nov. 28) that Miller Brewing Co., which has been a client of Boies, Schiller & Flexner in the past, “is not among the named defendants in the suit. … Boies claims this is because Miller is not one of the ‘more egregious’ actors in the industry”. Julian Sanchez (Reason “Hit and Run”, Nov. 28) discerns the ripple effects of anti-alcohol agitation by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and other Safety Dry forces. Jim Leitzel (Nov. 19) takes note of a study suggesting that alcohol advertising probably does raise the rate of underage drinking. Professor Bainbridge (Nov. 28) has some thoughts on the regulation-through-litigation angle. Further: for more on the Neo-Drys, see Radley Balko, “Back Door To Prohibition”, Cato Policy Analysis #501, Dec. 5. (Update Feb. 16: second suit targets brewers).

The jake-leg episode

While on the topic of alcohol, we also recommend Vice Squad’s Oct. 14 commentary on the Jamaican Ginger paralysis episode of the early 1930s, in which tens of thousands of mostly poor drinkers were afflicted with paralysis (“jake leg”) after consuming a cheap “medicinal” liquor substitute that had been adulterated with an industrial plasticizing chemical for purposes of evading scrutiny by Prohibition enforcers. A recent New Yorker article on the jake-leg episode (Dan Baum, “Jake Leg”, Sept. 15) declares it unfortunate (see final page of story) that this public health catastrophe occurred before the modern liberalization of product liability and class action law, which would presumably have led to a cathartic spasm of litigation. That’s a far from obvious conclusion, however, since even under today’s liberalized rules the only deep-pocketed entity on the scene, the company that made the plasticizing chemical, would not likely be found responsible in court unless someone could show it was aware its product was at risk of being added to the food supply. The more appropriate target for blame — aside from the shady operators who committed the adulteration — is the Prohibitionist regime itself, which ensured that the alcohol trade would fall into unscrupulous hands.

Scotland: “Alcoholics sue booze companies”

“Alcoholics are attempting to make legal history by suing the drinks industry for failing to warn them of the dangers of addiction. Twelve addicts, aged between 18 and 60, claim their lives have been destroyed by the demon drink and that they were not warned of the risks.” Lawyers from the Glasgow firm of Ross Harper “believe they can use the arguments employed in successful prosecutions against huge American tobacco companies in 2000 to win their case” and are applying for officially funded legal aid to help finance a test case. (Glasgow Daily Record, Jul. 21). Liquor companies have been curiously absent from the list of targets of mass litigation campaigns in the U.S.A. in recent years; but see Mar. 22, 2000.