Dram Shop Defense
March 8, 2013 /
Today the New Jersey Appellate Division ruled in the case Halvorsen vs. Villimil A-1306-11 addressing plaintiff evidentiary burden to produce eye witnesses under New Jersey’s Dram Shop statute. The court opined that the lack of eye witness testimony is not fatal to plaintiff’s claim and would not entitle defendant to Summary Judgment as a matter of law. In fact, the court stated quit the opposite. It ruled that if direct and circumstantial evidence combined with an expert report established a record that would allow a jury to reasonably and legitimately deduce that a dram shop defendant served a patron when he was visibly intoxicated that matter should proceed to a jury for their factual determination.
Submitted by truck accident attorney, Jeffrey Hark.
Leave a Comment