Giants Stadium Beer Vender Held Liable In $135 Million Auto ...

Lawyers Weekly USA: TOP TEN JURY VERDICTS OF 2005
Page 1 of 4
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Lawy
TOP TEN JURY VERDICTS OF 2005
#5
Giants Stadium Beer Vender Held Liable In $135
Million Auto Accident Case
© 2006, Lawyers Weekly USA
By Natalie White
In the largest liquor liability verdict in the nation, a New Jersey jury last January found the beer
concession at Giants Stadium in New York liable for a drunken football fan who caused a car crash
that paralyzed a 2-year-old girl.
After a month-long trial, the jury ordered the beer vendor and the driver to pay $135 million, includin
$75 million in punitive damages. The vendor was responsible for half of the compensatory damage
and all of the punitives, for a total of $105.5 million. The drunk driver was responsible for the
remainder.
Although the case was in some ways a simple dram shop case, the fact that it was a stadium vend
rather than a small bar made it more difficult, according to plaintiffs' lawyer David Mazie.
"These cases are never easy because juries tend to put the lion's share of the blame on the drunk
driver," he said.
Bringing a lawsuit against a large event vendor is particularly difficult because customers are
virtually anonymous among the crowds and drinkers are not necessarily visibly drunk when served
However, in this case, Mazie said the fan was visibly drunk and slurring his words and he returned
the same concession table for his beer several times. In addition, they were able to show that the
vendor's own policies called for special training to spot drunkenness, but the company did not mak
sure that all of its servers had the training before selling beer.
Mazie attributed the large verdict to the combination of a convincing liability case, catastrophic
injuries and a defendant with deep pockets.
"All three things came together for this verdict," said Mazie. "I think it was a reasonable verdict, eve
conservative. This case is the perfect argument against caps on anything. Here is a case of a victim
who can't move or breathe. It would be wrong to have any type of cap on pain and suffering. Peopl
like her would be hurt by such legislation."
Philadelphia-based Aramark Corp., which operates the concessions at Giants Stadium and severa
other sports facilities, has appealed the verdict, said Mazie. He said mediation talks have been
scheduled for later this month.
http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/usa/5topten2005.cfm
1/17/2006

---

Lawyers Weekly USA: TOP TEN JURY VERDICTS OF 2005
Page 2 of 4
Drunk As A Skunk
Daniel Lanzaro was driving home from a Giants football game in October 1999 when he lost contro
of his truck and slammed, head-on into a Toyota Corolla, paralyzing 2-year-old Antonia Verni from
the neck down. Verni, now 8, is unable to move her arms or legs or breathe on her own and needs
round-the-clock care.
While Lanzaro was drinking at the football game, the Vernis were picking out a pumpkin for
Halloween.
Although stadium rules prohibit vendors from selling more than two beers at a time to one person,
Lanzaro testified that he bribed one of the beer sellers with $10 to ignore the rules. He said he
bought six beers at halftime and that he had already drunk several before that.
Following the accident, Lanzaro's blood-alcohol level measured 0.266, more than twice the legal
limit of .10. Lanzaro, who settled for his insurance limits of $100,000, pleaded guilty and was
sentenced to five years in prison, which he is currently serving.
Focusing Blame On The Vendor
Clearly, a substantial portion of the blame rested with Lanzaro for driving while he was extremely
drunk. But with the driver settled for his policy limit, Mazie focused on the responsibility of the beer
vendor.
He showed the jury through documents and testimony that Aramark had created a "culture of
intoxication" that contributed to the accident that robbed Antonia of her ability to move and breathe
"The name of the game here was selling beer, and that was the bottom line," he said.
Mazie said that one of the primary challenges for the plaintiffs was reconciling the inconsistencies i
Lanzaro's accounts of how much he drank at the game. His versions varied significantly between
what he said immediately after the accident and what he said in subsequent depositions.
"That was a concern because he was my primary witness," said Mazie. "But in the end, at trial, he
was very honest. He said that he was guessing in the earlier statements. At trial he said, 'I know I
drank a lot but I cannot tell you how much.'"
The defense argued that Aramark did nothing wrong. Witnesses said that the company has a two-
beer limit and trains its employees to spot problems and refuse to serve those that are intoxicated.
But Mazie said internal Aramark documents and witnesses demonstrated that more than half the
servers on duty that night never had the training. Over several years, the company logged
thousands of violations, but few people were disciplined - an indication that the company was not
serious about its policies.
"Another thing they were arguing was that tolerance was an issue," said Mazie. Because Lanzaro
was a heavy drinker, Aramark claimed their employees could not tell he was intoxicated.
The plaintiffs responded to that argument by calling a toxicologist to testify that, with a blood alcoho
level that was twice the legal limit at the time of the accident, there was little doubt Lanzaro would
have showed signs of intoxication when he bought the beers at halftime. In fact, Lanzaro himself
testified that he was slurring his speech by halftime and his brother and sister-in-law testified that
they noticed he was showing signs of being intoxicated at halftime.
"They argued that they don't serve people who are visibly intoxicated, but we were able to show tha
they weren't very vigorous in enforcing that," said Mazie. "Their own witnesses testified that they do
http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/usa/5topten2005.cfm
1/17/2006

---

Lawyers Weekly USA: TOP TEN JURY VERDICTS OF 2005
Page 3 of 4
serve people who are intoxicated and only refuse when people are causing a problem. It comes
down to the bottom line. They want to sell as much beer as possible. The bottom line is making a
buck. That's why punitives were so high in this case."
The plaintiffs also noted that several years of Aramark records went missing, prompting the judge t
tell jurors they could infer that the evidence would have been bad for the defense, Mazie said.
"Everything came together in our case to establish this culture of intoxication," he said.
In a bizarre setback, a half-hour of the trial has had to be reconstructed for the record because the
tape recorder in the courtroom was not turned on during jury instruction, said Mazie.
"It was a critical part of the trial because it was during the charge to the jury on the punitive
damages," Mazie said.
Fortunately, much of the charge was preserved in writing because the jury had asked for clarificatio
and received some of its instructions in writing, he said.
Using the written jury instructions and testimony from lawyers, the missing half-hour was
reconstructed and is under review.
Antonia's parents, Ronald and Fazila Verni, said they plan to use some of the award for stem cell
research that might some day provide information useful in curing cases such as their daughter's.
They also said they hope the verdict will force vendors to put in place policies to prevent people fro
overdrinking and driving.
Questions or comments can be directed to the features editor at: bill.ibelle@lawyersweekly.com
Verdict: $135 million
$75 million in punitive damages.
State: New Jersey
Type of Case: Liquor liability
Trial: 4 weeks
Deliberations: 2 days
Status: On appeal. Mediation scheduled for January.
Case Name: Verni v. Lanzaro
Date of Verdict: Jan. 19, 2005
Plaintiffs' Attorneys: David A. Mazie and David Freeman of Nagel, Rice & Mazie in Roseland, N.J
Defense Attorney: Brian C. Harris of Braff, Harris & Sukoneck in Livingston, N.J.

http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/usa/5topten2005.cfm
1/17/2006

---

Lawyers Weekly USA: TOP TEN JURY VERDICTS OF 2005
Page 4 of 4
User Agreement For Subscriber-Only Online Benefits | Help | Our Privacy Policy
Send any questions or comments to comments@lawyersweekly.com
Customer Service: 1-800-451-9998 Technical Support: 1-800-444-5297 ext. 8156
© Copyright 2006 Lawyers Weekly, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Lawyers Weekly does not use spyware; however, we link to a number of other sites and do not take responsibility for any spyware they m
This site is best viewed with Internet Explorer 6 (click here to download) or Netscape 7 (click here to download)
68.239.181.82/5.93
0 milliseconds
http://www.lawyersweeklyusa.com/usa/5topten2005.cfm
1/17/2006

---