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.

The mother of a 9 year-old boy killed at Disney's Fort Wilderness Lodge in April of 2010 has now filed a Wrongful Death suit against Walt Disney World Parks and Resorts. This suit is the result of a fatal accident that occurred when the boy was killed by a Disney Transportation Bus while riding his bicycle. The facts of this case reveal the importance of performing an investigation into an accident early on, in order to potentially preserve evidence and generate specific legal theories.

In April of this year, a 9 year-old boy, whose family was staying at Disney's Fort Wilderness Lodge, was operating his bicycle on a service road to the Lodge when he apparently struck the side of the passing Disney bus and was pulled under its rear wheels. Investigation at the time by the Florida Highway Patrol and Disney World revealed that the bus driver was not at fault, and that the bicycle's flat tire caused the child to strike the side of the bus. Many passengers on the bus corroborated the version of events, which showed that the boy actually rode his bicycle into the side of the bus.

At first glance, neither Disney World nor the bus driver should bear any liability for this accident. According to all accounts and versions of the accident, the front of the bus passed the boy on the bicycle safely, and the bus wasn't traveling at an improper speed. However, investigation by the family's attorney revealed that in the area where the accident occurred, there were inappropriate sidewalks or pedestrian paths despite the fact that it was a highly traveled pedestrian and bicyclist area. The family's complaint filed with the Court stated that pedestrians utilizing the area are required to step off of the sidewalk and onto the roadway or even unpaved wetland areas to avoid vehicular traffic. Further, the sidewalks and roadways were improperly designed, due to the fact that railings and steep gullies stop pedestrians and bicyclists from leaving the roadway. Thus, the lawsuit focuses not on the conduct of the bus driver but on the condition of the roadway and sidewalks.

Without the experience of a qualified personal injury attorney, such investigation following this fatal accident may not have come up with an appropriate legal theory and the boy's family would not have been able to be compensated for the boy's conscious pain and suffering and ultimate death. Clearly, the family's rights and interests are being protected and pursued due to the experience and expertise of their attorney. If you think you may be in a situation where you have been in an accident and further investigation may be warranted, contact an attorney immediately.

A recent lawsuit filed in Baltimore reminds us that operators of automobiles and other vehicles on the road must recognize and be cognizant of the fact that smaller, some times hard to see vehicles share the road with us. There, a truck driver making a right hand turn struck and killed a bicyclist that was lawfully and properly using the roadway when the cyclist became entangled in the trucks rear tandem.
New Jersey's Motor Vehicle Statutes permit bicyclists to share the public roadways with the operators of motor vehicles. However, it must be pointed out that people riding bicycles upon the public roadways also have a general duty to follow the "rules of the road" and abide by roadway markings, traffic signs and signals. The failure of a cyclist to do so may be construed as negligence or an improper action by that individual that can be held against them in the event of an accident or claim for personal injuries. Further, it is conceivable that a bicyclist who fails to abide by traffic laws, signals or signs and causes a motor vehicle accident could be legally held responsible for money damages to compensate an injured party.
Another question that is raised is whether a child operating a bicycle will be required to abide by motor vehicle laws. There is not one clear answer under the law. The answer will depend on the facts of each case including the age of the child, the type of bicycle being ridden and sometimes the law of the local municipality. Generally, however, children are required to act reasonably under the circumstances for their age.
Accordingly, in light of the above, if you regularly operate a bicycle on public roadways, it may be wise to determine whether you have available insurance coverage in the event your operation of the bike causes an accident and either property damages or personal injuries. Most, if not, all automobile insurance policies exclude coverage for injuries or damages unless they are caused by the operation of a motor vehicle. Bicycles would be excluded. Homeowners' policies, if you have one, differ widely on the subject but may provide coverage for "vehicles powered by human means." To be definitive in this regard, you should contact your insurance agent and change your coverage if you believe you require it.