This is at Every Game ,with every Team !

Giantone · 08-03-2006, 08:28 PM

It's everywhere,it's why I don't drink at games .The drunks wreck it for everyone.

Beer vendor verdict overturned

Thursday, August 3, 2006

By KIBRET MARKOS
STAFF WRITER

A state appeals court on Thursday tossed out a record $109 million award to a quadriplegic Cliffside Park girl and her mother who were severely injured in a crash caused by a drunken New York Giants fan more than six years ago.

The ruling means a new trial in the case of 9-year-old Antonia Verni, who was paralyzed from the neck down when drunken driver Daniel Lanzaro slammed his truck into her family’s car in Hasbrouck Heights.

Verni’s family sued Aramark Corp., which runs the beer concessions at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, where Lanzaro had downed more beers than he could remember.

After a month-long trial last year, a jury in Superior Court in Hackensack found that Aramark promoted a “culture of intoxication” at the stadium and carelessly sold beer to a visibly drunk Lanzaro. The jurors then granted the Verni’s the largest dram-shop liability award in the nation’s history.

A three-judge appellate panel, however, reversed the verdict Thursday, ruling that the trial was marred by numerous errors and lacked “true adversity that is an underpinning of our judicial system.”

The panel agreed with Aramark's attorneys that the evidence presented to prove a “culture of intoxication” at Giants Stadium – including wrongful hiring, insufficient training and supervision of alcohol-vending staff – should not have been admitted at trial.

The central issue during the trial was whether alcohol was negligently sold to a visibly drunk Lanzaro. The judges wrote that the evidence relating to the “culture of intoxication” was marginally relevant at best, while causing undue prejudice against Aramark.

Company attorneys on Thursday referred all questions to a spokeswoman, who issued a brief statement.

“While we are saddened by the injuries suffered by Antonia Verni, we are gratified by today’s court decision,” said Kristine Grow, the spokeswoman.

The Vernis’ attorney, David Mazie, stressed that Thursday’s ruling was not premised on the size of the award, but rather on “hyper-technical legal issues” surrounding the trial. He also vowed to take the case to the state Supreme Court.

“This is not the end of anything,” he said. “We will continue to fight on behalf of Antonia and her mother.”

Lanzaro, a 35-year-old Cresskill carpenter and a father of two, testified during the trial that he began drinking at a tailgate party at a Giants game on Oct. 24, 1999. He said he later went to two strip clubs with his friend, Michael Holder, and was “beyond drunk” when he smashed his pickup truck head-on into the Vernis’ car.

Antonia, 2 years old at the time, stopped breathing twice as paramedics tried to resuscitate her. The girl’s mother, Fazila Baksh Verni, was hospitalized for two months with multiple fractures and became partially blind.

Antonia’s father, Ronald, escaped with minor injuries, as did Lanzaro, whose blood-alcohol level at the time of the accident was more than twice the then-legal limit. He pleaded guilty to vehicular assault and is now serving a five-year prison term.

The Vernis originally sued several persons and entities, including Holder, Giants Stadium, the National Football League, the New York Giants and the two go-go bars where Lanzaro went after leaving the stadium.

The Vernis later settled the claim against those defendants for a total of about $1 million. Aramark went to trial and was found liable for 50 percent of the damages. Lanzaro was liable for the other half.

In Thursday’s decision, however, the appeals panel agreed with Aramark attorneys that the jury should have considered the percentage of liability of the other defendants – which could have lowered Aramark’s share of liability.

The trial in Hackensack involved extensive evidence on how alcohol was served at the stadium. Mazie argued that Aramark violated its own policy of not selling more than two beers at a time to patrons, and presented witnesses who testified that they never saw anyone – drunk or not – being refused drinks at the stadium.

Aramark attorneys argued that its managers, vendors and alcohol-compliance officers were well-trained in identifying drunken patrons but were fooled by Lanzaro, a seasoned drinker who showed no signs of intoxication.

724Skinsfan · 08-03-2006, 08:34 PM

Pathetic. I've got nothing against getting ripped at a sporting event (as I have many an occasion) but have someone take care of you. Not for you, but for the innocent people that you may hurt.

3rd ID SOLDIER · 08-03-2006, 08:49 PM

it was probably shockey and plaxico burress that were drunk in the car that did that!

Pocket$ $traight · 08-03-2006, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3rd ID SOLDIER

it was probably shockey and plaxico burress that were drunk in the car that did that!

I don't think the girl's family would find the joke amusing but I do disagree with our culture's tendency to sue anybody and everybody and to dish out idiotic amounts for damages. 109 million? That is almost as stupid as the 300 million initially given to the smoker.

What is next Dallas suing the Redskins for that violation in FedEx?

LBrown43 · 08-03-2006, 10:29 PM

I followed the trial and was amazed at the inital ruling. Anyone who has been to a game knows it is very difficult to afford the amount of beers that it would take to get you 2x the legal limit. The guy also went other places after the game so the beer he might have had was well added to by the time the accident happened. Plus you know and I know he was probably tailgating for hours before so the few beers he probably had in the stadium really did little to get him any drunker. Plus, I have seen them turn people away at Giants stadium, happens all the time...as it should. It is unfortunate the little girl was hurt so badly, but ultimate responsibility rests with the guy and his friends who did not keep him from getting behind the wheel.

jamf · 08-03-2006, 10:53 PM

what happened to the drunk driver? I hope he spends decades in prison.

dmek25 · 08-03-2006, 10:45 PM

you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl?

jamf · 08-03-2006, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl?

If there was a law against selling booze to drunks, Half of the people on the warpath would still be virgins...

I would like to see more control on the amount of alcohol sold, but in reality there is no way to control when and where people drink.

hooskins · 08-04-2006, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl?

No way, I believe that if someone is obviously drunk then they shouldnt get served, but that is it. It is not the companies fault, personal responsibility here, seriously. If you get drunk, its YOUR fault, not the beer seller. I am sick of people blaming their probs on other ppl.

Schneed10 · 08-04-2006, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl?

I can't effing stand this argument. Since when can a dollar value be put on someone's life? Why do we insist on assigning a dollar value to it? First off, punitive damages like that are ineffective. The only people that care if Aramark loses 109 million are the shareholders, and the CFO and CEO of Aramark. And they won't make any sweeping changes as a result of the punitive damage ruling, they already have mechanisms in place not to sell to visibly drunk people. It's stupid to ask Aramark to pay $109 million. The primary responsibility rests with the guy who got behind the wheel.

The only reason Aramark was named in the case was because this family was out for jackpot justice, and when they realized that they could only milk a couple thousand out of the drunk driver, they went after whoever had money. And that was Aramark.

What, paying $109 million is supposed to make anybody any less hurt or any less dead? It's retarded. It accomplishes nothing, other than get the family rich off their daughter's misfortune.

hooskins · 08-04-2006, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Schneed10

I can't effing stand this argument. Since when can a dollar value be put on someone's life? Why do we insist on assigning a dollar value to it? First off, punitive damages like that are ineffective. The only people that care if Aramark loses 109 million are the shareholders, and the CFO and CEO of Aramark. And they won't make any sweeping changes as a result of the punitive damage ruling, they already have mechanisms in place not to sell to visibly drunk people. It's stupid to ask Aramark to pay $109 million. The primary responsibility rests with the guy who got behind the wheel.

The only reason Aramark was named in the case was because this family was out for jackpot justice, and when they realized that they could only milk a couple thousand out of the drunk driver, they went after whoever had money. And that was Aramark.

What, paying $109 million is supposed to make anybody any less hurt or any less dead? It's retarded. It accomplishes nothing, other than get the family rich off their daughter's misfortune.

Exactly, I agree with you 100%. The company has no involvement, and the only thing to get out of the company is money. Like I said before, people have to make their own choices, and face the results of that choice, and not blame it on other people.

Master4Caster · 08-04-2006, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl?

No, if it were my little girl, $109 million would not be enough. But I would be biased and that's why injured parties do not sit on juries of their own lawsuits. Sounds like the court is saying that some evidence, that Aramark should have been able to present, was supressed. Had it been presented, maybe the jury would not have awarded $109 million. So the trial is a "do over."

Aramark is entitled to fairness, too. I can't tell from this snippet how much beer Aramark sold the guy; how drunk he may have looked; or when they last sold the beer to him; or the time gap between his last beer at the game and his next hit at the girly club; or how much he had at the girly club; or whether they should have cut him off; or a lot of other details why Aramark was liable for $109 million when the Giants, Meadowlands, NFL and especially the strip clubs settled for $1 million. Something funny there.

Giantone's original point was that rowdy behavior has become a bigger part of football games than it used to be. That's true. And the people most responsible are the ones who get tanked. Adults are supposed to be responsible for their own actions.

Pocket$ $traight · 08-05-2006, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dmek25

you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl?

Typical liberal dribble. Her life is ruined. What's the point in trying to capitalize on it? It is the fault of the guy not the vendors. Why should some greasy lawyer get 30 - 40 million because a poor little girl was paralyzed?

JoeRedskin · 08-05-2006, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grim21Reaper

Typical liberal dribble. Her life is ruined. What's the point in trying to capitalize on it? It is the fault of the guy not the vendors. Why should some greasy lawyer get 30 - 40 million because a poor little girl was paralyzed?

Holding corporations liable for their negligent actions is not liberal drivel. It is, in fact, merely making sure that corporations are also held "personally" responsible for their actions.

As for the greasy lawyer making 30-40 million - I resemble that remark (Well, except for the 30-40 million).

Schneed10 · 08-04-2006, 12:12 AM

The drunk driver should spend years and years in prison. But Aramark has NO RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL in my opinion.

08-03-2006, 08:28 PM	#1
Giantone Gamebreaker Join Date: Apr 2006 Posts: 13,949	This is at Every Game ,with every Team ! It's everywhere,it's why I don't drink at games .The drunks wreck it for everyone. Beer vendor verdict overturned Thursday, August 3, 2006 By KIBRET MARKOS STAFF WRITER A state appeals court on Thursday tossed out a record $109 million award to a quadriplegic Cliffside Park girl and her mother who were severely injured in a crash caused by a drunken New York Giants fan more than six years ago. The ruling means a new trial in the case of 9-year-old Antonia Verni, who was paralyzed from the neck down when drunken driver Daniel Lanzaro slammed his truck into her family’s car in Hasbrouck Heights. Verni’s family sued Aramark Corp., which runs the beer concessions at Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, where Lanzaro had downed more beers than he could remember. After a month-long trial last year, a jury in Superior Court in Hackensack found that Aramark promoted a “culture of intoxication” at the stadium and carelessly sold beer to a visibly drunk Lanzaro. The jurors then granted the Verni’s the largest dram-shop liability award in the nation’s history. A three-judge appellate panel, however, reversed the verdict Thursday, ruling that the trial was marred by numerous errors and lacked “true adversity that is an underpinning of our judicial system.” The panel agreed with Aramark's attorneys that the evidence presented to prove a “culture of intoxication” at Giants Stadium – including wrongful hiring, insufficient training and supervision of alcohol-vending staff – should not have been admitted at trial. The central issue during the trial was whether alcohol was negligently sold to a visibly drunk Lanzaro. The judges wrote that the evidence relating to the “culture of intoxication” was marginally relevant at best, while causing undue prejudice against Aramark. Company attorneys on Thursday referred all questions to a spokeswoman, who issued a brief statement. “While we are saddened by the injuries suffered by Antonia Verni, we are gratified by today’s court decision,” said Kristine Grow, the spokeswoman. The Vernis’ attorney, David Mazie, stressed that Thursday’s ruling was not premised on the size of the award, but rather on “hyper-technical legal issues” surrounding the trial. He also vowed to take the case to the state Supreme Court. “This is not the end of anything,” he said. “We will continue to fight on behalf of Antonia and her mother.” Lanzaro, a 35-year-old Cresskill carpenter and a father of two, testified during the trial that he began drinking at a tailgate party at a Giants game on Oct. 24, 1999. He said he later went to two strip clubs with his friend, Michael Holder, and was “beyond drunk” when he smashed his pickup truck head-on into the Vernis’ car. Antonia, 2 years old at the time, stopped breathing twice as paramedics tried to resuscitate her. The girl’s mother, Fazila Baksh Verni, was hospitalized for two months with multiple fractures and became partially blind. Antonia’s father, Ronald, escaped with minor injuries, as did Lanzaro, whose blood-alcohol level at the time of the accident was more than twice the then-legal limit. He pleaded guilty to vehicular assault and is now serving a five-year prison term. The Vernis originally sued several persons and entities, including Holder, Giants Stadium, the National Football League, the New York Giants and the two go-go bars where Lanzaro went after leaving the stadium. The Vernis later settled the claim against those defendants for a total of about $1 million. Aramark went to trial and was found liable for 50 percent of the damages. Lanzaro was liable for the other half. In Thursday’s decision, however, the appeals panel agreed with Aramark attorneys that the jury should have considered the percentage of liability of the other defendants – which could have lowered Aramark’s share of liability. The trial in Hackensack involved extensive evidence on how alcohol was served at the stadium. Mazie argued that Aramark violated its own policy of not selling more than two beers at a time to patrons, and presented witnesses who testified that they never saw anyone – drunk or not – being refused drinks at the stadium. Aramark attorneys argued that its managers, vendors and alcohol-compliance officers were well-trained in identifying drunken patrons but were fooled by Lanzaro, a seasoned drinker who showed no signs of intoxication.

08-03-2006, 08:34 PM	#2
724Skinsfan Playmaker Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Roanoke, VA Posts: 3,508	Re: This is at Every Game ,with every Team ! Pathetic. I've got nothing against getting ripped at a sporting event (as I have many an occasion) but have someone take care of you. Not for you, but for the innocent people that you may hurt. __________________ "I hope I'm getting better. I hope you haven't seen my best." - Jim Zorn

08-03-2006, 08:49 PM	#3
3rd ID SOLDIER Special Teams Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 197	Re: This is at Every Game ,with every Team ! it was probably shockey and plaxico burress that were drunk in the car that did that! __________________ YALL DON'T WANNA SEE ME SHINE THAT'S OKAY CAUSE I LOVE ME SOME ME BELIEVE IT!!

08-03-2006, 10:29 PM	#5
LBrown43 Special Teams Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Clinton (as in Portis) New Jersey Age: 63 Posts: 217	Re: This is at Every Game ,with every Team ! I followed the trial and was amazed at the inital ruling. Anyone who has been to a game knows it is very difficult to afford the amount of beers that it would take to get you 2x the legal limit. The guy also went other places after the game so the beer he might have had was well added to by the time the accident happened. Plus you know and I know he was probably tailgating for hours before so the few beers he probably had in the stadium really did little to get him any drunker. Plus, I have seen them turn people away at Giants stadium, happens all the time...as it should. It is unfortunate the little girl was hurt so badly, but ultimate responsibility rests with the guy and his friends who did not keep him from getting behind the wheel.

08-03-2006, 10:53 PM	#6
jamf Pro Bowl Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: San Diego Ca Posts: 5,296	Re: This is at Every Game ,with every Team ! what happened to the drunk driver? I hope he spends decades in prison.

08-03-2006, 10:45 PM	#7
dmek25 MVP Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: lancaster,pa Age: 63 Posts: 10,672	Re: This is at Every Game ,with every Team ! you guys are pathetic. if a vendor or beer stand sold him beer , like i used to see all the time at the vet, while visibly drunk, why shouldnt they be responsible? here a little girls life, along with her families, is basically ruined. as far as im concerned, all parties involved should pay. is 109 million enough if it would be your little girl? __________________ "It's better to be quiet and thought a fool than to open ones mouth and remove all doubt." courtesy of 53fan

08-04-2006, 12:12 AM	#15
Schneed10 A Dude Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Newtown Square, PA Age: 45 Posts: 12,421	Re: This is at Every Game ,with every Team ! The drunk driver should spend years and years in prison. But Aramark has NO RESPONSIBILITY AT ALL in my opinion. __________________ God made certain people to play football. He was one of them.

This is at Every Game ,with every Team !

Locker Room Main Forum