Answered step by step
Verified Expert Solution
Question
1 Approved Answer
Rodriguez v. Goodlin beverages. Without proofs, plaintiff has no cause of 2006 WL 2390218 (N.J. 2006) action under the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server
Rodriguez v. Goodlin beverages. Without proofs, plaintiff has no cause of 2006 WL 2390218 (N.J. 2006) action under the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act, commonly Ruben Almeida stabbed David Rodriguez in known as the dram shop law, for injury resulting Sherlock's Lounge & Liquors, a tavern in Atlantic from the sale of alcoholic beverages. That City. Rodriguez sued Sherlock's for injuries he Rodriguez considered Almeida to be drunk [at the sustained in the assault.... time of the altercation] would not permit a jury, No evidence is extant from which a jury could without speculating, to reasonably conclude that reasonably conclude that Almeida appeared Almeida was served while visibly intoxicated. intoxicated when he was served the alcoholic [Plaintiff's case was therefore dismissed.] CASE QUESTION 1. Why was plaintiff's opinion that his assailant was intoxicated when he hit plaintiff not sufficient evidence of the attacker's intoxication for purposes of dram shop liability
Step by Step Solution
There are 3 Steps involved in it
Step: 1
Get Instant Access to Expert-Tailored Solutions
See step-by-step solutions with expert insights and AI powered tools for academic success
Step: 2
Step: 3
Ace Your Homework with AI
Get the answers you need in no time with our AI-driven, step-by-step assistance
Get Started