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.

A recent unreported New Jersey Appellate Division decision reveals that a breach of a duty of care does not always give rise to liability in a negligence claim. In Ocampo v. Famco, the Appellate Division rejected a plaintiff's case wherein a sleepwalking 16 year old fell out of a 2nd story window with a nonfunctioning lock, finding that it was not reasonable for a jury to conclude that such an accident was foreseeable under the circumstances.

A viable cause of action based in negligence requires the following elements: 1. a duty to the plaintiff; 2. the breach of a duty; 3. proximate causation; and 4. damages. In the case involving the 16 year old, there is no doubt that the defendant landlord had a duty to properly maintain the subject apartment, including the window lock. Further, there was no question that the defendant landlord failed to comply with this duty by failing to ensure that the lock was functioning. Unfortunately, the plaintiff was unable to show proximate causation. Basically, under New Jersey law, proximate causation is based, in part, on the foreseeability. In this regard, an injury or damages will not be considered "proximately caused" by another's breach of duty unless a jury can conclude that such damages are "reasonably foreseeable" under the circumstances.

In the above referenced case, the Appellate Division found that because the youngest person residing in the apartment was 16 years old, a jury could not possibly conclude that one would fall out a second story window due to a nonfunctioning lock. In other words, the Appellate Division concluded that it was not foreseeable that someone 16 years older would fall out of 2nd story window due to a nonfunctioning lock.

We disagree with the Appellate Division's holding in this regard! It is just as foreseeable that an "incapacitated" 16 year old could fall out of a 2nd story window as a two or three year old child. "Incapacitated" could include a sleepwalker, a mentally incapacitated person, or someone on prescription or over the counter medication, or under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs. Is it not foreseeable that 16 year old, who is the youngest resident in the apartment, could be incapacitated under one of the above theories? We think so. Would the landlord be responsible if the neighbor's 3 year old had fallen out of the window instead? We think so. In our view, what is and is not foreseeable, as far as issues of proximate cause are concerned, should be left to the sound discretion of a jury, and as such, we believe the appellate division erred in dismissing this plaintiff's case.

In these types of cases, only an expert, experienced attorney should be retained in order to protect your rights and pursue your interests to the fullest extent the law allows, and to get the justice you deserve.

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently decided a case wherein it held that waivers of liability in health club contracts and gym membership contracts are valid and enforceable. In Stelluti v. Casapenn Enterprises, LLC, the Court dismissed the plaintiff's case because the contract that the contract signed with the defendant health club contained a "waiver of liability" and, as such, she was unable to be compensated for her pain and suffering, disability and impairment and loss of enjoyment of life for injuries sustained while exercising at the health club.

In the above-referenced case, the plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant health club to utilize the health club's premises, machines and staff in exchange for a monthly payment. Contained within the contract that the plaintiff signed was a paragraph which purported to prevent the health club from being responsible for any and all injuries sustained by the plaintiff (or any users of the health club) while at the health club or using their facilities. Although contracts of this type have existed for many years, it was generally the long standing rule in the State of New Jersey that parties to a contract could not obtain a waiver of liability for their own negligent acts. For instance, such contracts were upheld if an individual was hurt in the health club or suffered, for instance, a heart attack, while exercising where the injury was in no way related to the general negligence of the health club facility. However, liability against the health club would generally be upheld where the health club's actual negligence was the proximate cause of the injury.

In this recent case, the Supreme Court basically changed and clarified that long standing rule and concluded that such waivers of liability are fully enforceable even where the health club's alleged negligence was the proximate cause of the injury. For instance, in this Supreme Court case, the plaintiff was engaging in a spinning class when the handlebars on the spin bike became loose causing her to fall and sustain serious personal injury. The allegations were that the handlebars were not properly secured by the class instructor. As such, it was the health club's staff's negligence which proximately causes the plaintiff's injury.

The Court held that such a plaintiff may only maintain suit against the health club if it can be shown that the health club's behavior was reckless, intentional or willful and wanton as opposed to just general negligence. Importantly, the Court stopped short of providing blanket immunity to such health clubs when a waiver is signed. For instance, it is not clear whether the case allows for a lawsuit when a patron slips and falls on water in the lobby area of the health club while not engaging in any physical activity. Further, it is not clear whether or not other conditions of the property could give rise to a cause of action.

In light of the above, in the event you or a family member are injured as a result of exercise in a health club setting, it is important to seek the advise of a personal injury attorney who can provide you with proper guidance and fully protect your rights.