Certainly when Patricia Gike rented her long-time handyman a room for two nights in Freehold, New Jersey she did not expect to bear liability for his negligent actions, which then led to a fire. Joseph Michael Wood was Ms. Gike's handyman; one afternoon he had a seizure on Ms. Gike's property. She rushed him to the hospital and when he was told that he needed to stay locally for a few days to have a follow-up medical appointment, Ms. Gike altruistically offered to rent him a hotel room.

Ms. Gike merely paid for the room, she never entered it nor did she obtain the key. However, under state regulations that govern hotels and multiple dwellings, Gike is considered an occupant of the room and, therefore, could be held liable for the actions of her guests. Mr. Woods brought a gas can to the hotel room so he could huff the gasoline. He was also smoking a cigarette in the room. He proceeded to accidently knock the gas can over, and his lit cigarette started a massive fire that caused significant damage. The hotel brought a civil suit against Ms. Gike for the damage.

A Monmouth County Superior Court Judge ruled in favor of the hotel, and found that Ms. Gike was automatically liable for the actions of Mr. Woods. The Court of Appeals affirmed that Ms. Gike was an occupant of the room under state regulations, but said that she may not necessarily be held automatically liable for the civil damages caused by Wood's negligence. This case is remanded back to Monmouth County Superior Court to rule on the issue of whether or not Ms. Gike will be found liable for Mr. Woods' negligence.

This is a reminder to everyone that rents a hotel or motel room to be mindful of the way you and your guests treat the space. By signing your name to the bill you not only assume the cost of the room but also the liability if anyone should destroy it. If anything like this has happen to you, you should contact a civil trial lawyer immediately.

In the State of New Jersey, the owner of an automobile may be responsible for another's accident under two separate theories of liability. The first is called "respondeat superior". This is where the driver of a vehicle is carrying out business for the vehicle's owner and is involved in an accident. This would be the case where an employee is driving an employer's car for business purposes. Despite the fact that the employee was operating the vehicle, the employer would also be responsible for any damages.

The second theory is called "negligent entrustment". Basically, this theory is based upon the owner's own negligence for allowing another individual to operate their vehicle when the owner has reason to know that the other individual is irresponsible or has a greater propensity to operate the vehicle improperly given the owner's knowledge of prior conduct. For instance, if you allow an individual with a suspended license for 14 speeding violations to operate your car and they are involved in a high speed collision, it is likely that you will have some responsibility for the happening of that accident.

An Appellate Court of New Jersey recently discussed these theories of liability and a potential cause of action in the case of Jafar v. Elrac Inc. There, two teenagers were struck and killed by the driver of a vehicle who claimed that his company transferred him to an outside sales job despite the fact that the company had full and complete knowledge of his drinking problem. Thus, the theory was asserted that the employer should not have given this individual an outside sales job because it was foreseeable that he would be operating a motor vehicle and, with his drinking problem, may be operating that motor vehicle in an intoxicated state. Therefore, it was alleged, that the company was negligent in its own right for making this outside sales transfer.

The Court dismissed the claim against the employer not on the legal theory but, instead, on the facts of the case. There was no indication in the facts of the case that the employer knew that its employee was drunk on the night in question or that it had the ability to control his actions that evening. Based on those facts, the Court could not find liability.

It is important to note that the argument in favor of liability in this matter was a valiant attempt at stretching the present state of the law. In this regard, under different facts, it is likely that a court could find liability against an employer if that employer knowingly places an employee into a situation where it is foreseeable that the employee may cause injury to others. Obviously, in order to expand upon current law, you will require services of a trained and qualified attorney who can properly evaluate the facts of your case.

In the heavily divided Supreme Court decision of Voss v. Tranquilino, the New Jersey Supreme Court has held that intoxicated drivers injured in a motor vehicle accident may have a viable case against the bar which has negligently served them alcohol. The state of the law in this regard has been unclear as a result of an insurance law statute, which purports to prevent law suits being brought by intoxicated drivers when they are injured in motor vehicle accidents. Accordingly, it was the widespread belief that an injured intoxicated driver would not be allowed to bring suit against a bar or liquor licensed establishment that may have negligently served him/her alcohol, and, which negligent service was the proximate cause of a motor vehicle accident and their injuries. In the Supreme Court's recent decision, they held that the insurance statute related to banning causes of action for intoxicated drivers only applies to suits that could be brought against the operators of other motor vehicles. In this regard, the court held that New Jersey's Dram Shop Statute does not prevent such suits from being filed. We do not believe that such liability would ever be imposed upon a social host setting, in that the social host liability statute is completely separate and apart from the Dram Shop liability statute. (See prior blog).

We believe that the Supreme Court's opinion is contrary to public policy, although it may be in conformance with the black letter of the statute. In this regard, we are also of the opinion that New Jerseys Legislature will ultimately address this "loophole" and prevent potential law suits by intoxicated persons against licensed establishments that may have negligently served that person alcohol. At the present time, however, such suits remain viable and will have to be dealt with by the courts of our State. These complexities and variations with each holding from the Court are why an expert attorney is needed, to sort through the detailed circumstances and series of events in your particular situation and how they may fit into the existing case law, such that your rights are protected to the fullest.

As the summer begins, many people host parties at their homes where they serve alcohol to their guests. One question that is frequently asked of attorneys is whether or not the person hosting the party can be responsible for injuries resulting from the service of alcohol at the parties. The short answer is yes.

New Jersey law is split with regard to social host liability as it relates to the service of alcohol to people under the age of 21 and over the age of 21. Liability for the service of alcohol in a social setting (not a bar or restaurant) to individuals over 21 is governed by statute (N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.6, et seq.). Basically, the statute provides that if you provide alcohol to a social guest over 21 years of age while that person is "visibly intoxicated" you can potentially be responsible for injuries or damage that are caused by the "visibly intoxicated" person. Thus, when serving alcohol at your home or at a party you must be aware of the signs of intoxication in your guests and, if such signs exist, immediately stop serving them alcohol.

The Statute mentioned above limits liability to situations where only third parties are injured as a result of motor vehicle accidents. For instance, if you negligently serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person at your home, you will not be responsible for injuries sustained because that intoxicated person injured someone in a fight. The Statute only applies to motor vehicle accidents. Further, you will not be responsible for injuries to the intoxicated person themselves. The Statute is for the benefit of "innocent" third parties.

The law drastically differs with regard to the negligent service of alcohol in a social setting to individuals under the age of 21. There is no statute that governs this situation. Instead, liability is based on common law principles of negligence. In this regard, the same rules concerning service to "visibly intoxicated" individuals presently applies. However, if alcohol is provided to a "visibly intoxicated" individual under the age of 21, liability extends to all situations where an innocent third party is injured (not just motor vehicle accidents), and includes liability for injuries sustained by the intoxicated minor.

After reviewing recent case law in this jurisdiction and other jurisdictions, it is our impression that the courts of this state will ultimately extend social host liability to individuals who serve alcohol to minors even before that minor is "visibly intoxicated". This means, in our opinion, that liability will attach to any and all individuals serving alcohol to minors whether or not the minor is showing signs of intoxication at the time of service.

It should be noted that the "service" of alcohol as described in this blog does not necessarily mean that you actually have to give the drink to the "visibly intoxicated" person. All that is necessary is that alcohol be "provided" at your house, home or party in order to for liability to attach. Accordingly, in situations where there is a keg party or self-service bar set up in your home, you will have been deemed to "provide" the alcohol.

Finally, one last note of caution concerning the service of alcohol to individuals under 21. It is presently a disorderly person offense in the State of New Jersey to serve or provide alcohol to any individual under the age of 21. Further, depending on the circumstances, it may also be deemed a criminal offense of endangering the welfare of a minor.

The bottom line is that service of provision of alcohol to minors should be avoided at all costs, and service of alcohol to adults must be monitored very carefully to avoid liability. If you find yourself involved in any way to an accident stemming from alcohol being served at a residence, on either side of this controversial and sensitive topic, it is important that you contact an attorney immediately, to sort through the circumstances surrounding that accident in detail in order to protect your legal rights.