Aramark Case

Alcohol Management Post Verni
(Author's note...This article comes from a different perspective as I was the expert witness for Aramark in this case.)


The stunning verdict in the Verni case against Aramark and other defendants has shook the entire concession and facility management industry. The case involved a drunk driver (with three prior drunk driving convictions) who caused a serious injury to a passenger in another car in an accident almost three hours after leaving the Meadowlands. Before the accident, the driver stopped by a liquor store, a fast food restaurant, and two bars. During the trial, the Plaintiffs’ lawyer painted the Meadowland’s and it concessionaire as a proverbial “den of inequity” full of drunks and fostering a “drunken environment.” This portrayal helped convince a jury to award the largest Dram Shop verdict in United States history, $109 million verdict against Aramark.

Aramark appealed the decision and an appellate court overturned the lower courts’ decision in 2006. The appellate court concluded that the Plaintiffs produced no evidence that the driver purchased beer or that he was served when he was visibly intoxicated. The court stated, “[E]vidence of drunken attendees is inadmissible. It does not account for the possibility that patrons may have consumed the alcohol off premises, before the game at a tailgate event, or that the alcohol was purchased by a sober patron who supplied it to an intoxicated patron.” The parties settled the case in 2007, and the final amount was not disclosed. The fact that the case was successfully appealed limits how useful the case can serve as a precedent because neither side can claim that the court has clearly indicated the “industry standard” that should be applied when examining dram shop cases involving sport facilities.


The plaintiffs’ lawyer skillfully isolated Aramark as the “big bad guys” to increase jury sympathy and paint the case as a large greedy corporation against a poor, disabled child. However, his arguments also attacked the entire industry and painted the concession industry as a group of greedy businesses interested in maximizing profits while showing absolutely no regard for patrons. Some of his claims could be interpreted by the jury to mean:
Not every server was recertified by TIPS and some servers had served beers prior to receiving TIPS training (but servers could have had other training or prior beer service experience without formal training).
Every server should have been TIPS certified even those who only accepted cash in a food service line where beer was also sold.
TIPS maintained lists of employees needing recertification rather than Aramark.
Any difference from strategy encouraged by TIPS was an alleged violation of industry standards.
Every stand that served alcohol should have had more supervision.
Every time someone was denied service, the denial should have been documented.
There should have been more alcohol compliance inspectors (possibly one supervisor for every two or three stands).
Aramark should be liable for anyone intoxicated in the facility even if the patron did not purchase a single beverage from Aramark.
Aramark alcohol compliance personnel should have documented every instance where they observed a beer server selling more than two beers, selling to someone who might have appeared intoxicated, or who might have been underage.
Compliance personnel should have been TIPS trained and he eluded that police alcohol training was not equivalent to TIPS training.
Aramark and/or its beer servers could have taken patron keys if they appeared intoxicated.
Stand supervisors and/or alcohol compliance personnel should have followed patrons who might appear intoxicated to make sure they do not purchase any alcohol at another stand or obtain alcohol from other sources-such as someone giving a friend a beer.
Beer servers did not spend enough time with purchasers to adequately evaluate if they showed signs of intoxication.
Designated driver programs should have been available not just at the start of the game, but also when the game ended.
A stadium was not really any different than a bar and that even though a stadium might serve 60,000 beers in a game, they should be held to the same standard as a bar that sold only 40 beers during the same time period.

Some problems with the claims raised by Plaintiffs’ counsel include:
It would almost be impossible to both sell beer and process all the paperwork that might be required to monitor thousands of transactions and customers.
The extra personnel required to implement some of the suggested tactics would probably drive the cost of beer to $15.00 or more a cup and could lead to increased violence and people sneaking alcohol into the facility (even with searches).
There is no mention of the other parties to the game/event experience which includes the facility owners/management, police, facility tenants, and security companies.
He painted the beer servers as heartless people interested in maximizing their revenue versus the testimony which showed the servers were dedicated employees who were not interested in taking any bribes or violating any policies for fear of losing their jobs.
The beer servers who testified indicated what were some signs of intoxication they looked for and that such knowledge can exist regardless of whether or not someone is TIPS (or TEAM) trained (this does not mean that training is not important, but training should not be the only criteria for establishing a concessionaires guilt or innocence).
It is not illegal for someone to be intoxicated in the facility, it is only illegal when they operate a vehicle or engage in other illegal activity.
Patrons might act intoxicated through engaging in activities such as yelling, but they might not have had anything to drink and are just excited.

Thus, plaintiffs’ attorney painted a wholly unrealistic image of the concession industry, but one that a jury could buy and conclude that Aramark was evil and needs to be punished.

Based on the arguments or lack-thereof, several potential strategies could be developed that could help prevent similar claims. It should be noted that these are not industry standards and are only risk management strategies suggested by one individual.
Have digital cameras monitor the exit ways when people are leaving the facility. The driver in the Verni case supposedly left the facility before the game ended and there were only two exits open before the game ends. If these areas were monitored (they were manned) it could have been beneficial to have video showing if someone was leaving and could barely stand as plaintiffs’ attorney claimed.
Have cameras as well as police monitor those leaving the parking lot to spot erratic behavior from poor driving to people yelling incoherently (which might be hard to distinguish from people yelling in delight or grief). A drunk driving check point could also be placed outside the facility and shift some of the responsibility to the police.
Have all alcohol compliance inspectors or supervisors document where they have visited so they can have a running log (i.e. 10 minutes at stand A, watched 40 transaction, everyone appearing under 30 carded and two patrons denied) to demonstrate that they were actively monitoring what was occurring.
Utilize a hand stamp on a patron’s hand indicating that they are showing signs of intoxication and a subsequent server can ask to see the person’s hand for a stamp before serving them.
Petition state representatives to change the dram shop laws so that stadiums, arenas, and other large public assembly facilities are treated differently compared with a bar.
Have the teams/events, facility management, security, concessionaires, and others meet to create a seamless division of responsibility and overlapping safeguards in place so that if any patron can fool one group there is a backup group that can serve as a second line of defense.

Beer is an integral component of sporting/concert events and helps countless fans enjoy the game/event. Will patrons get drunk at events/facilities? The answer is of course yes! Everyday people get drunk all over the world, since it is not illegal to drink in most countries. One study indicated that 5-7 percent of fans at one stadium in Canada were intoxicated enough to demonstrate signs of intoxication. However, patrons can be intoxicated without ever purchasing alcohol from a concession stand or vendor. Under the potential Verni precedent (if the case had not been overturned on appeal) everyone affiliated with the event would be liable for any unlawful act undertaken by a patron (whether inside or outside the facility) even if the patron never purchased a drink and snuck their drinks in or were intoxicated before arriving at the facility. This would force facilities to check patrons before entering the facility and not allow fans with erratic behavior into the facility (as well as expel and take the keys from anyone who acts overly exuberant during and after the event). This could raise countless legal issues such as discrimination, violation of the American’s with Disability Act, and liability for excluding someone from the facility if that person then gets into an accident upon leaving the facility. This is not what the law is designed to accomplish and will lead to countless frivolous claims that would destroy the industry.