. .

Invest in your success.
JVRA helps lawyers win cases by providing critical information you can use to establish precedent, determine demand and win arguments.


DEFENDANT’S – Dram Shop – Defendant bowling alley allegedly serves three patrons when visibly intoxicated – Patrons become embroiled in altercation with plaintiffs – One plaintiff suffers orbital fractures and loss of vision in one eye – Second plaintiff sustains nasal fractures – Liability only.

Suffolk County, NY

The plaintiffs, a 22-yer-old car mechanic and a 22-year-old deli clerk, contended that the defendant bowling alley served intoxicating beverages to the three third party defendant patrons when they were showing signs of visible intoxication. The defendant bowling alley denied that the assailants were visibly intoxicated or that the bartender served them while they were intoxicated.

The plaintiffs contended that the three men had been drinking heavily, that they were visibly intoxicated, that the bartender continued to serve them, and that the altercation would not have occurred had the bartender had stopped serving the men. The plaintiffs testified that there were numerous empty beer bottles, liquor bottles and shot glasses on the bar in front of them, and that the third-party defendants were slurring their words, stumbling and being rude to the female bar tender.

According to the plaintiffs, a non-party, who was a friend of the assaulting patrons, told one of the plaintiffs that a man wearing a similar jacket as the plaintiff had harassed his daughter earlier in the evening. The plaintiffs testified that the man then left, but that after some time, they became upset when the plaintiffs did not buy them drinks. The plaintiffs reported that one of the intoxicated patrons then threw a punch and struck one of the plaintiffs, precipitating the events. The plaintiffs charged the bar owner with spoliation of evidence, alleging a surveillance camera digitally captured the incident and recorded it to a DVR, but the bar owner purposefully destroyed the tape.

The bar owner further argued that the altercation did not result from intoxication, but because the friend of the three assailants had indicated that one of the plaintiffs had harassed his daughter. The bar’s owner testified that it is policy not to serve people if they are intoxicated, and that the men were not served in an intoxicated state. The owner further testified that the DVR is on a loop and continuously tapes over itself. The jury found for the defendant bowling alley/tavern.

To read the full article, please login to your account or purchase

5 ways to win with JVRA

JVRA gives you jurisdiction-specific, year-round insight into the strategies, arguments and tactics that win. Successful attorneys come to the table prepared and use JVRA to:

  1. Determine if a case is winnable and recovery amounts.
  2. Determine reasonable demand for a case early on.
  3. Support a settlement demand by establishing precedent.
  4. Research trial strategies, tactics and arguments.
  5. Defeat or support post-trial motions through past case histories.

Try JVRA for a day or a month, or sign up for our deluxe Litigation Support Plan and put the intelligence of JVRA to work for all of your clients. See our subscription plans.