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.
Posted in Dram Shop Defense, Truck Accident
Legal Developments
That Affect You
-
2022 changes to New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 45:1-15.9.
This memorandum addresses the scope of New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 45:1-15.9,summarizes the 2022 amendments to that statute, identifies the effective date andapplicability of those amendments, and outlines practical implications forregulated professionals and licensing boards. Background N.J.S.A. 45:1-15.9 is part of New Jersey’s professional and occupational licensinglaws administered under Title 45. The statute governs disciplinary and…