fbpx

The Dram Shop Case

If the title to this article sounds like the title to a Sherlock Holmes story that is no coincidence. After all, the term “dram” is an ancient term which, in merry old England, described a measure of liquid, more properly known as a fluid dram. The fluid dram was equivalent to 1/8th of a fluid ounce, or approximately the amount that a teaspoon would hold in the Middle English era. Of course, the term was also used to describe a taste of the spirits, usually Scotch Whiskey. Establishments that served spirits became known as dram shops. That is, as they say, where the trouble began. As we all know, the consumption of whiskey and other intoxicating brews has led to a world of problems for both the consumers of alcohol, and for those who came in contact with consumers who overindulged.

The problems caused by drunks came to the attention of courts and legislatures who, in many instances, determined that justice required that those who profited from the sales of intoxicating beverages should bear responsibility for providing alcohol to those who should not have it, principally those who are already inebriated. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures thirty (30) states have laws that allow licensed establishments such as bars, restaurants, and liquor stores to be held liable for selling or serving alcohol to individuals who cause injury or death as a result of their intoxication. Happily, Pennsylvania is one of the states which have created a law which spells out the responsibility to the public of those licensed to dispense alcohol in the state.

The Pennsylvania “Dram Shop Act” provides in relevant part: 

No licensee shall be liable to third persons on account of damages inflicted upon them off of the licensed premises by customers of the licensee unless the customer who inflicts the damages was sold, furnished or given liquor or malt or brewed beverages by the said licensee or his agent, servant or employee when the said customer was visibly intoxicated. Pa. Stat. tit. 47, §4-497

Stated otherwise, the owner of an establishment which is licensed to sell intoxicating beverages is prohibited from selling, furnishing, or giving such beverages to a customer who is visibly intoxicated. This does not mean that a bar or restaurant is responsible for everything that their patrons may eventually do. It does, however, require that they monitor the conduct and appearance or their customers, and that they refuse to serve anyone who is already displaying evidence of intoxication. Failure to do so will effectively cause the bar or restaurant to answer for the damage the drunk inflicts.

It goes without saying that the most common type of Dram Shop case involves automobile accidents caused by individuals who were served at a point after which they were already visibly intoxicated. The combination of the speed and size of an automobile and a severely impaired driver is often devastating to others. Under certain limited circumstances the Dram Shop Act affords the victim of a drunk driver a remedy in addition to that of pursuing the drunk, who may have little or no collectible insurance or assets.

If it can be shown through competent evidence that the drunk driver was served after he or she was visibly intoxicated the bar or restaurant that served him can be held responsible for all of the damage the drunk driver causes. The public policy is so strong on this point that, unlike virtually every other type of personal injury case, the liquor licensee will be required to pay 100% of a joint verdict against it and the drunk, even if the drunk is found to be 99% at fault, and the liquor establishment only 1%. In other joint cases each defendant will pay only its percentage share of verdict, and the victim may be unable to secure payment of the entire verdict due to limited insurance or assets of the defendant found to be primarily liable. The Legislature specifically excluded Dram Shop cases from the general rule, and created a greater likelihood that the victim of joint negligence of a bar and a drunk driver will be fully compensated.

This firm has successfully litigated cases involving Dram Shop claims. In one instance, the eventual victim of the drunk driver actually witnessed a bartender serve the driver when he should not have done so. The victim left the establishment and went home while the drunk stayed and drank some more before eventually driving to the victim’s home and hitting him with the vehicle. Detailed and timely investigation revealed other witnesses who saw the driver’s condition shortly after leaving the bar and their testimony corroborated that of the victim. Further, by issuing subpoenas to the State Police it was possible to obtain the police cruiser videotape of the drunk driver’s arrest. Finally, a toxicologist was retained to review the available evidence, and he provided an expert opinion that the driver was indeed visibly intoxicated when served by the defendant bar. A favorable settlement followed.

Because recovery against liquor establishments is limited to those instances where it can be proven that the driver was served while visibly intoxicated these cases are difficult to win. However, when such a case is properly pursued it can provide full financial recovery in cases involving serious injuries that might otherwise go begging. Prompt and aggressive investigation is key. Please contact us if you have any questions concerning Dram Shop cases, or other cases involving serious injuries arising from automobile, truck, motorcycle, or construction accidents.

Tom Baumann receives award

Abes Baumann, P.C. is please to congratulate Tom Baumann on being awarded the 2014 George F. Douglas Jr. Amicus Curiae Award by the Pennsylvania Association for Justice, formerly the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association, for his work in representing the interests of injured workers. The award is given to a member who has written numerous friend of the court legal briefs on behalf of the organization.

This award is further evidence of Tom’s commitment to injured workers.

Congratulations Tom.

The Soul of the Young Lawyer

Every day, we are surrounded by the material aspects of life that feed our stomachs, egos, or other physical needs. We often forget to feed the soul. There is an old theory about law students: they all start law school wanting to save the world, but by the time they graduate, they want the job that pays the most. I was the opposite. I started out in law school wanting to make as much money as possible, but as time went on, I found that the quality of the work mattered to me as much, if not more, than the money. I have come to think of those intangible aspects of a career as feeding the soul.

Representing clients in Workers’ Compensation gives me the opportunity to represent real people with real problems. My clients are suffering. They have staggering medical bills. They cannot pay the mortgage or buy food for their families. My job lets me help them.

Often, my clients have done everything right, but the insurance company won’t live up to its responsibility. The client has seen the doctors he was told to see. He has done the physical therapy prescribed. He has had the surgery recommended. He has taken the medications ordered. Through no fault of his own, his injury is one that will never fully heal. Amazingly, the insurance company still will not pay for lost wages and medical care. This is where I come in and can help them.

I feel very fortunate to have found a job that feeds my soul.

Workers’ Compensation Judges

In Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation, cases are decided by Workers’ Compensation Judges. These Judges have certain requirements that they have to meet before appointment as a Judge by the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation. According to the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act, a candidate for judge must meet the following minimum requirements:

1. Be an attorney in good standing before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

2. Have five years of Workers’ Compensation practice experience before administrative agencies or similar experience

3. Complete the course of training and instruction and pass the examination required by the Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

All candidates for Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Judge must take a civil service test. Successful candidates are hired from the top three performers on the tests in the geographical areas to which the test applies.

Judges also have a lengthy and restrictive code of ethics which they must follow. As a result of the prerequisites and the code of ethics, Pennsylvania has a group of highly qualified Workers’ Compensation Judges. If you are an injured worker appearing before a Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Judge, you can feel confident that the Judge deciding your case has a deep knowledge of the Workers’ Compensation Act and will handle your case fairly.

When you have questions about a Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation case, you should feel free to contact an attorney at Abes Baumann. You will speak to a very experienced Workers’ Compensation lawyer the day you call. You will not be charged anything unless you hire us and we are successful.

Dealing with Panel Doctors

Many employers set up so-called panels of medical providers to treat injured workers for work related injuries. Under the new Pennsylvania Worker’s Compensation act if an employer sets up a list of at least six healthcare providers the injured worker has to treat with a provider on that list for the first 90 days of treatment. If the worker treats with someone not on the list, it would be at his/her expense. The 90 days begins to run with the first day of treatment and ends on the 90th calendar day from that point.

Many employers attempt to direct the injured worker to a specific medical provider. This can be an occupational medicine doctor that the employer sends everyone to or it could be the occupational medicine Department of local hospital. Needless to say, these referrals are very important to the physician or facility to which the injured worker is being steered. The injured worker has every right to question exactly where the loyalty of such providers actually lies. Every injured worker has the right to pick any doctor on the list with whom to treat, regardless of the preferences of the employer. Of course, if the injured worker has a back problem he cannot treat with the eye doctor on the list. So long as the physician treats the kind of problem the injured worker has, the worker can choose to see that physician. Workers should firmly but politely exercise their right to see the doctor on their list of their choosing. When in doubt about what one is able to do, injured workers should always consult a knowledgeable workers compensation attorney.

Sometimes during the 90 day surgery is recommended by one of the panel doctors. The best approach to dealing with this situation would be to wait until after the 90 days has expired, so that the injured worker can see a surgeon of his or her own choosing. The Worker’s Compensation act clearly provides that a workers compensation claimant can see any physician here she chooses after the 90 days. Our firm often recommends to our clients that he or she make an appointment with their own physician for the 91st day so as to begin the process as soon as possible.

Our Worker’s Compensation attorneys often see appointments made for injured workers near the end of the 90 day. We see panel doctors frequently releasing injured workers to full duty and/or certifying full recovery as the workers approach the 90 day deadline. The safer course for injured workers who already have an appointment scheduled after the 90th day is to avoid an examination with the panel doctor close to the 90 day deadline.

 If you, the reader, is looking for a workers compensation attorney in Pennsylvania, please feel free to call us. You will receive a no charge and no obligation consultation.

Abes Baumann Attorneys Recognized by Peers

Edward J. Abes, Thomas C. Baumann, and Douglas A. Williams have been recognized again as Super Lawyers by their peers. Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. The selection process is multi-phased and includes independent research, peer nominations and peer evaluations.

Tom has been named as one of the Top 50 Lawyers in Pittsburgh. This is Tom’s seventh consecutive appearance on the Top 50 list.

Congratulations to Ed, Tom, and Doug for being named Pennsylvania Super Lawyers in Workers Compensation.

TALK WITH AN ATTORNEY TODAY!

We only get paid when you win, so you don’t have to worry about hourly rates or fees. That means you’ll never see a bill unless you win. Fill out the form below and you’ll hear back from us immediately.