None for the Road

Catherine and Joseph Zak were just being sociable: when Donald Gwinnell visited their Long Branch, N.J., home, they served him Scotch. He drove off--and into a head-on collision with Marie Kelly. Seriously injured, Kelly sued Gwinnell. But then Gwinnell joined her in a separate suit against the Zaks, claiming they were responsible for giving him too much booze and permitting him to drive away.

In a surprising 6-to-1 decision last week, New Jersey's supreme court ruled that the Zaks could in fact be tried for negligence. However, the court limited the scope of its decision to instances where a sober host "directly serves" liquor to an intoxicated guest. Hosts of parties with "many guests" would not be liable.

Still, the precedent may inspire lawsuits throughout the U.S.

Dissenting Justice Marie Garibaldi said that it could open the door to "speculative and subjective" legal judgments. But Chief Justice Robert N. Wilentz wrote that society has now decided it must "do whatever is required ... to stop the senseless loss inflicted by drunken drivers." Washington seems to agree. Last week Congress approved and sent to the President a bill that will cut federal highway funds for states that do not adopt a minimum drinking age of 21.