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.
