A car crash lawyer sues careless drivers who cause accidents. But a car crash lawyer also sues bars. How so? Here are excerpts from an actual court case brought by a car crash lawyer:
Amanda Cummings was a passenger in a car driven by Brian S. Olson. Cummings fractured her neck when Olson’s car hit a parked vehicle. Olson’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was .19%. That’s more than twice the legal level.
Cummings’ car crash lawyer sued Olson for negligence (carelessness). Cummings’ car crash lawyer also sued three bars under the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act (known commonly as the “Dram Shop Act”). The Dram Shop Act lets victims of drunk drivers sue businesses who serve visibly drunk patrons alcohol, if that patron causes a car accident. The car crash lawyer claimed that the bars served Olson alcoholic beverages before the accident. Even after Olson was visibly intoxicated.
CAR CRASH LAWYER SUES BARS FOR SERVING VISIBLY DRUNK PATRON
Cummings’ car crash lawyer filed her lawsuit on November 7, 2011. The Court dismissed Olson from the case because Cumming’s car crash lawyer failed to prosecute the case against Olson. Later, Olson’s attorney even signed papers to allow the case to proceed against his client. However, Cummings’ counsel neglected to file those papers. So Cummings’ claim against Olson was never reinstated.
The case proceeded against the bars. They requested that Olson provide sworn testimony before trial. When Olson failed to do so, the judge granted the bars’ motion to prevent Olson from testifying at trial.
The bars then filed motions to dismiss Cummings’ claims against them. All three bars argued Cummings’ car crash lawyer could not establish liability against them. The car crash lawyer did not present any evidence showing Olson was served alcoholic beverages while he was visibly intoxicated. Cummings’ car crash lawyer filed a motion for permission to take Olson’s testimony after the normal deadline for doing so had passed. The car crash lawyer conceded that, without Olson’s testimony, Cummings was unable to present the proof requested
Judge Katie A. Gummer denied Cummings’ motion. The judge found that Cummings’ car crash lawyer had not established the good cause necessary to extend the deadline. She noted that the deadline was previously extended twice. The judge also denied Cummings’ subsequent motion to reinstate her lawsuit against Olson.
APPEALS COURT RULES
Represented by a different lawyer, Cummings appealed. After reviewing the record, the appeals judges were satisfied that Judge Gummer properly exercised her discretionary authority. Cummings’ prior car crash lawyer did not take the steps necessary to prepare this case for trial. And Cummings’ prior lawyer’s efforts to reinstate the case were grossly untimely. The appeals judges thus upheld Judge Gummer’s decisions.
This case shows why it is crucial for car crash victims to hire an experienced car crash lawyer. One who knows what he or she is doing.