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.
___
- Our office charges on a contingency fee basis in accident cases which we accept. There is no charge for an initial consultation to evaluate your case. E-mail us or call us at 1-808-528-2525 if you have any more questions.
___
- If you believe that you may have a claim of this type, please take a few moments to visit with a paralegal to outline the nature of your claim. Thank you!
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.).