Provision barring plaintiff from personal injury action when convicted or having pleaded guilty to DWI offense cannot be read to bar a civil action when, despite purported “clear evidence” of intoxication, there is no specific guilty plea or conviction.

The plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident with a tractor-trailer and initiated a lawsuit alleging causally-related injuries and damages. Despite deposition testimony that the plaintiff had been drinking and significant blood alcohol contents noted in tests conducted when the plaintiff was transported to the hospital, the plaintiff was never formally convicted of nor pleaded guilty to a DWI offense. The defendant sought a ruling from the court overturning the lower court’s denial of the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The lower court stayed with a strict interpretation of the New Jersey statute that requires conviction or a guilty plea. Despite the Appellate Court’s acknowledgment of the strong public policy to deter drinking and driving and prior example of interpreting similar statutes, the court opined that the strict language of this law was intended to obviate the need for civil courts to analyze whether certain facts constituted sufficient evidence ‘beyond a reasonable doubt.’ For these reasons, the court stayed with the strict interpretation, noted disputing evidence as to the plaintiff’s intoxication, and affirmed the ruling denying summary judgment.

_{Case Law Alerts, 2nd Quarter, April 2023 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey to provide information on recent developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. Copyright © 2023 Marshall Dennehey, all rights reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm.}