## Facts

- Two-year-old Antonia Verni and her mother, Fazila Baksh Verni, suffered severe injuries when their car was struck head-on by a vehicle driven by Daniel Lanzaro, who was heavily intoxicated.
- Earlier that day, Lanzaro attended a New York Giants game at Giants Stadium, bought and consumed beer there, and later continued drinking at two bars.
- Plaintiffs alleged stadium concessionaires served Lanzaro alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated, creating liability under the New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act (Beverage Server Act).
- The Giants Stadium concessions were organized through multiple related entities:
  - Harry M. Stevens, Inc. of New Jersey (HMS) held the liquor license and concession contract.
  - Aramark Services Management of New Jersey, Inc. (ASM) supplied and employed the concession workers who sold beer.
  - Aramark Corporation (AC) was the parent; Aramark Sports and Entertainment Group, Inc. (ASEG) was an affiliated overseeing entity.
- Evidence showed separate corporate records and observance of corporate formalities; plaintiffs relied on centralized cash management, shared address/leadership overlap, and HMS’s limited operations to argue for veil-piercing.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court improperly admitted broad “culture of intoxication” and policy/regulatory-violation evidence that risked expanding liability beyond the Beverage Server Act’s requirement of service to a visibly intoxicated patron.
2. Whether the evidence supported piercing the corporate veil (or an enterprise theory) to impose liability on AC and ASEG for the stadium alcohol service.
3. Whether punitive damages could stand given the asserted trial errors and the statutory framework.

## Decision

- The court vacated the liability judgment and remanded for a new trial because the case was tried with extensive, prejudicial evidence and theories broader than the Beverage Server Act permits.
- The court reversed the trial court’s veil-piercing ruling and directed judgment for AC and ASEG, finding the record insufficient to disregard corporate separateness.
- The court vacated the punitive damages award because it depended on the vacated liability verdict.

## Legal Principles

- The Beverage Server Act provides the exclusive civil remedy for dram-shop claims and narrowly defines negligence as serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person (or serving a minor under specified circumstances).
- Evidence and arguments that invite a verdict based on generalized venue conditions (e.g., widespread rowdiness or a general “culture of intoxication”) are improper when they dilute the statutory requirement that the specific patron was served while visibly intoxicated.
- Veil-piercing requires proof that the corporate form was used to perpetrate fraud or injustice (or comparable abuse), not merely common ownership, shared officers, centralized cash management, or coordinated operations within a corporate group.
- Punitive damages are derivative of an underlying liability finding; when liability is set aside and retried, a punitive award based on that liability cannot stand.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Division required a new trial limited to the Beverage Server Act’s narrow “visible intoxication” standard, rejected liability-expanding evidence based on generalized stadium misconduct, and held that corporate separateness barred imposing dram-shop liability on Aramark’s parent and affiliate absent proof of misuse of the corporate form.


Verni ex rel. Burstein v. Harry M. Stevens, Inc. of N.J., 387 N.J. Super. 160, 903 A.2d 475 (App. Div. 2006)