$105M Award Against Beer Vendor Is Overturned on Appeal
This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.
TRENTON, N.J. — An appeals court yesterday overturned a landmark $105 million verdict against a stadium vendor that sold beer to a drunken fan who later paralyzed a girl in an auto wreck.
Ordering a new trial, the three-judge state appeals panel said the trial court improperly allowed testimony about the “drinking environment” at the 1999 football game at Giants Stadium.
The family claimed that vendors for Philadelphia-based Aramark Corp. continued to sell beer to Daniel Lanzaro during a 1999 New York Giants game even though he was clearly drunk and that the concessionaire fostered an atmosphere in which intoxicated patrons were able to still buy alcohol.
Hours later, Lanzaro, then 34, caused the wreck that paralyzed then-2-year-old Antonia Verni from the neck down.
“The admission of this evidence cannot be considered harmless. A central theme of plaintiffs’ case was the culture of intoxication at the stadium,” the court wrote in its 65-page ruling.
Last year, a state judge in Hackensack rejected an effort by Aramark to throw out the verdict or reduce the January 2005 judgment by a Bergen County jury.
The jury said Lanzaro and Aramark should pay a total of $135 million in damages. At the time, legal experts said it was the largest alcohol liability award in America in at least the last 25 years.
Aramark’s portion of that award was $30 million in compensatory damages and $75 million in punitive damages.
“While we are saddened by the injuries suffered by Antonia Verni, we are gratified by today’s court decision,” an Aramark spokeswoman, Debbie Albert, said yesterday.
An attorney for the girl’s family, David Mazie, said the ruling will be appealed to the state Supreme Court.
Mr. Mazie said the reversal was based on technicalities and not the amount of the damages. Still, he called the decision troubling. “The Supreme Court can’t allow the verdict to remain,” he said. “It’s a major societal issue.”
The appeals court also said jurors should not have been told that they could consider and provide compensation for the girl’s shortened life expectancy.
