One component of New Jersey's drunk driving (DWI) statute provides that a person convicted of driving while intoxicated. "shall have no cause of action for recovery of economic or non-economic loss sustained as a result of an accident,". In a recent case, an appellate panel analyzed whether a drunk driver could prosecute a civil claim against a bar under New Jersey's so-called Dram Shop Act.

The court opened its analysis in this case, by noting that although the law requires judges to ascribe, ordinary meaning to plain words used in a statute, it decided that, despite the direct language of the section of the drunk driving (DWI) statute recited above, a drunk driver could assert a claim against the bar for serving him/her while visibly intoxicated. The court's reasoning began with a recognition that this provision in the drunk driving (DWI) statute was conceived to reduce the cost of automobile insurance and since an automobile insurance policy was not involved in the drunk driver’s claim the underlying purpose of the statute should not apply. Next, the court determined that if the drunk driver was barred from asserting its claim, liquor license holders would be immune from certain instances of liability, which was inconsistent with the state's policy to reduce incidents of drunk driving. Finally, the court focused on an earlier decision, which addressed the question of whether this section of the drunk driving (DWI) statute could prevent the liability of a social host who served an underage claimant  injured in an automobile accident that ultimately produced a drunk driving (DWI) conviction for the claimant.  In that case, the court concluded that the underage claimant had a cause of action against the social host despite the instructions of the drunk driving (DWI) statute prohibiting people convicted of drunk driving (DWI) from asserting civil claims for injuries received while intoxicated.

Just last week the Supreme Court decided to review this case.