Court: Brick Man Who Drove Drunk Can Sue Toms River Bar

Frederick Voss, a 47-year-old Brick resident, can sue Tiffany's bar and restaurant in Toms River, the state Supreme Court ruled on Wednesday.

Voss — whose blood alcohol level was .196, nearly two-and-a-half times the legal limit of .08 when his motorcycle collided with another person's vehicle — sued Tiffany's, where he had been drinking the night of Nov. 9, 2006, and Kristoffe and Jaime Tranquilino, the driver and owner of the car, respectively, with which he collided.

Police reports from the time indicated Voss had run a red light. He eventually pleaded guilty to a DWI charge.

Voss claimed in his lawsuit that he suffered injuries in the crash and should be compensated.

Tiffany’s moved to dismiss the complaint, citing an existing law that states drivers who are convicted of, or plead guilty to, driving while intoxicated cannot recover damages as a result of an accident. Voss' attorney, William A. Wenzel, argued that the case against Tiffany's should be allowed to go forward based on the state's Dram Shop Act, which provides for civil judgments if one is served alcohol negligently.

A lower court had previously ruled that the law barring drunken drivers from recovering damages resulting from their intoxication was meant to reduce automotive insurance premiums, and not the insurance premiums of establishments that serve alcohol, therefore implying that a suit against a bar could move forward.

The Supreme Court agreed in its 5-2 decision, released Wednesday. Justices Stuart Rabner, Virginia Long,  Jaynee LaVecchia, Helen Hoens and Edwin H. Stern ruled in favor of Voss. Justices Barry Albin and Roberto Rivera-Soto, who often butt heads in Supreme Court decisions, dissented.

"But the majority has concluded — wrongly, in my opinion — that the Legislature did not really mean to exclude taverns from suit, despite the statutory language to the contrary," Albin wrote in his dissent. "However imperfect or misguided the statute may seem to the majority as written, our duty is to give it effect."

"An intoxicated person is deterred from driving drunk by losing the right to sue
under Title 39 [state motor vehicle law] for insurance coverage for his injuries," the majority decision read. "On the other hand, permitting an injured drunk driver to file an action against a liquor establishment and its servers for serving a visibly intoxicated patron similarly advances the goal of deterring drunk driving."