Stadium Beer Vendor Takes $105M Hit for . . . Selling Beer: A New Jersey jury has awarded a judgment of $105 million against Aramark, the company in charge of concessions at Giants Stadium and in favor of the plaintiff, a young girl whose family's car was struck by a drunk driver coming from the game, rendering her a quadriplegic. The plaintiff's theory, which the jury accepted, was that Aramark violated its own rules by selling beer to the man, who was obviously drunk, and by creating a "culture of intoxication" at football games.



The judgment was for $30 million in compensatory damages and $70 million in punitive damages; it likely will be heavily reduced on appeal. But this shows many of the problems of the American tort system. First, the story identifies the trial's most compelling witness as the young girl, who was two at the time and is now seven. This is a problem because she had absolutely nothing to do with the selling of beer, the drinking of beer, or the driving of a car after drinking the beer -- all of which seem to be the key issues in this case. What happened to her is a legitimate tragedy -- she is only 7 years old, will never walk and needs a machine to breathe. But clearly what happened here is that a jury wept for a young girl and decided that she needed to be compensated for what happened. A large, heartless, faceless corporation was there, so they would do. This is the "deep pockets" theory at its finest. The family could not get enough money from the driver -- he paid his insurance policy limit of $100,000, so they looked elsewhere for the cause of this horrific event.



This is not to say that Aramark is blameless in this. I have no doubt that they continued to sell alcohol to this man and that he was drunk. But what should be remembered is that many fans act in a crazy manner at football games -- this is why they are called "fanatics." A fan may be spilling beer, speaking incoherently or brawling with another fan and the only thing in their system is adrenaline and a sense of pride. At the same time, others may be "visibly drunk" to friends but look no worse than many other patrons to an outside observer.



Unless vendors begin instituting breathalyzers prior to selling beer, under this ruling stadium vendors will have no choice but to cut someone off that is acting even a bit "weird." So what will that person do? Have a friend or spouse that is not so drunk go and buy the beer. Unless we shackle those that are drunk at football games (and that should only be about 30,000 people or so), there really is no way that a stadium vendor can keep beer out of their hands, unless they stop selling beer.



What makes the verdict even more egregious is that the stadium does not sell beer at all in the second half. How can a stadium and vendor be any more responsible than foregoing beer sales for half of the game, which must cut revenues by at least 1/3, if not more. Yes, this will not stop all drunk driving, but nothing short of confiscating all of the fans' keys will. This seems to be an enormous step by the stadium and the vendor to curb drinking and driving, but the jury did not seem to credit it.



What seems to be more realistic is for the responsibility to lie with the party that is truly responsible: the driver and his compatriots at the game. He made a decision to drink and then to get in his car and drive. His friends, who testified that he was visibly drunk and should not have been served more beer, let him drive! The accident which left this young girl paralyzed was a tragedy and my heart goes out to her. But in a society where alcohol and sporting events go hand in hand, and effective monitoring is not really an option, it seems ridiculous to hold the beer vendor responsible for the consequences of one man's senseless act.

Posted in: