Personal Injury Attorney Hawaii- William Lawson- Drunk Driver, Dram Shop Lawyer


Keywords: dramshop, dram, shop, attorney, lawyer, Hawaii, accident, accidents,Honolulu, Maui, Big Island,
liquor, alcohol, dram shop, liability, bar, tavern, lawyers, attorneys, killed, death, died


William H. Lawson, Attorney at Law


1188 Bishop St.
Suite 2902
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Phone: (808) 524-5300 New Client Hotline
Phone: (808) 528-2525 Main Business Line


The Deadline to File a Dram Shop Claim / Liquor Liability Claim

The deadline for most dram shop (liquor liability) claims in Hawaii is two (2) years from the date of the injury. For those claims which arise out of car accidents, the deadlines for motor vehicle accident related claims may apply to certain aspects of such claims (see motor vehicle section of this web-site).


Claim Information

Generally in Hawaii a dram shop (liquor liability) claim starts with a bar or liquor store selling alcoholic beverage to a person who is under the influence of alcohol at the time. If that person thereafter injures a third party, the Hawaii courts may impose liability on the commercial seller of the liquor for the damages caused. The Hawaii Supreme Court first recognized dram shop liability for liquor sales by commercial establishments in Ono v. Applegate, 62 Haw. 131, 612 P.2d 533 (1980). Intoxicated adult drivers who injure themselves do not have a claim recognized by the Hawaii courts at this time. The claims of intoxicated minor drivers who injure themselves are generally are not recognized by the Hawaii courts at this time- Winters v. Silver Fox Bar, 71 Haw. 524, 797 P.2d 51 (1990) [A minor who sustains injury due to his or her own voluntary intoxication is not within class of persons protected by statute prohibiting sale of liquor to minors, and thus is precluded from a suing commercial liquor supplier]. However, it is possible that the Hawaii Supreme Court is in the process of revisiting this issue. The Hawaii Supreme Court has found that a store operator may be held responsible to innocent third parties injured as a result of an illegal sale to a minor even though the injuries were caused by an intoxicated minor other than the minor who bought liquor, if such injury was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of an illegal sale. Reyes v. Kuboyama, 76 Haw. 137, 870 P.2d 1281 (1994) At present, however, it appears that only third parties who are injured by a drunk person's conduct are clearly protected by Hawaii's dram shop doctrine.

Affirmative Acts

Certain persons (including taverns, bars and liquor stores) may become liable to an intoxicated person for his injuries if they commit "affirmative acts" which increase the risk or the severity of the injury to the intoxicated person. Although "aggressive selling" has been found not to constitute such an "affirmative act", it is probable that conduct such as transporting the person to a dangerous and busy intersection and leaving them there unattended would constitute such an affirmative act. See, Feliciano v. Waikiki Deep Water, Inc., 69 Haw. 605, 752 P.2d 1076 (1988).

Social Hosts

The social host who throws a party and whose guest causes an accident after leaving, does not have liability under Hawaii law for damages caused. Only commercial establishments (including taverns, bars and liquor stores) are liabile under the present case law. It is yet to be determined, however, whether or not employers will be found liable for "Pau Hana" party drinkers on company premises or for intoxicated persons leaving the employer's premises after parties or celebrations.

___

___




Explore this site:
Lobby Check-in Paralegal Investigation Attorney Solicitors
Links More Links Disclaimer Credits Home

Sister sites:
Accident Lawyer Hawaii | Attorney - Injury Lawyer Hawaii | Attorney -
Car Accident Attorney Hawaii | Lawyer - Hawaii Injury Lawyer | Attorney -
Hawaii Accident and Personal Injury Lawyer | Attorney




Hawaii Personal Injury and Accident Law News and Cases

Last Thursday, July 14, 2005, the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a 4-3 decision striking down as unconstitutional Wisconsin’s cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. The $350,000 cap (indexed for inflation)went into effect in May 1995. The Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision rested on equal protection grounds, although other constitutional infirmities were also asserted. The Plaintiff in the case is Matthew Ferdon, now 8, who is partially paralyzed and has a deformed right arm as a result of an injury that occurred at birth. The case is Ferdon v. Wisconsin Patients Compensation Fund, 2005 WI 125 (July 14, 2005). Hawaii has considered and even implemented some "tort reform" measures which appear to suffer from the same constitutional defects.

In overturning a $6.7 million jury verdict, the Ninth Circuit recently reversed the decision of the Montana U.S. District Court excluding hedonic damages testimony from the defendant's damages expert in a wrongful death case. The admission of the testimony of the plaintiff's expert on hedonic damages as "reliable testimony" after a Daubert challenge to its admissibility did not require a finding that the defense expert's testimony was "unreliable" - it should have been admitted and it was for the trier of fact to resolve the experts' differences. Dorn v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., No. 03-35071 (9th Cir. Feb. 7, 2005) (Kleinfeld, Callahan, & Bertelsman, JJ.).