The effect that a New York Giants football game had on Antonia Verni’s life on Oct. 24 four years ago could hardly be more heart-wrenching.

Antonia, then 2, went pumpkin picking with her parents that day in Lancaster, Pa.

As they drove to their New Jersey home, Daniel Lanzaro, who turned 14 beers at Giants Stadium into a blood alcohol level of .266, plowed his truck into the Vernis’ Toyota Corolla.

Antonia was paralyzed from the neck down.

Lanzaro was sentenced to five years in prison.

But the Vernis believe that Lanzaro wasn’t the only one liable for their daughter’s catastrophic injuries. The lawsuit they’ve filed in New Jersey is fueling more than just barroom bickering over who should be held responsible.

The civil suit names not just Lanzaro but the New York Giants; the New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority, the stadium owner; Aramark, seller of Giants Stadium concessions; and the National Football League.

The claims are built around the idea that the NFL and its teams don’t just allow but encourage fans to overimbibe and that Giants Stadium doesn’t even follow its own two-beers-at-once limit. It took a measly $10 tip for one vendor to sell Lanzaro six beers.

It might be easy to dismiss the suit as an overreaching grab at deep pockets. But the case actually raises legitimate questions about how far corporations in pursuit of profits can go in creating dangerous situations and then be indifferent to the ramifications of their actions.

Tort law, which allows victims of negligent behavior to sue those they believe have injured them, serves a couple of purposes. It’s meant to make a victim whole, to the extent that money can do that. It also aims at deterring other recklessness.

In addition to holding drunken drivers accountable for the harm they cause, many states also have decided that those who enable drunken drivers should bear some fault. That’s why there are laws holding bars and restaurants liable for continuing to serve inebriated customers. Some states also allow suits against social hosts if a drunken guest hurts someone after leaving a party.

The guiding principle is that someone can be held legally responsible for harm stemming from their actions if they could foresee it happening.

Say a baseball team hands out souvenir bats to all paying customers at a game. It’s no leap to imagine that unruly fans might turn the bats into weapons if a fracas breaks out after a skirmish over a home-run ball. It’s even easier to foresee that result if beer flows freely for seven innings.

But should the team be expected to envision that some patrons might leave the premises and then beat a convenience store clerk unconscious with their souvenirs during a robbery?

In the Verni case, it’s foreseeable that a football fan probably will drive home from the game; it’s also foreseeable that a fan driving drunk might hurt innocent motorists along the way.

The question then is: Who contributed to his being a public hazard?

Sure, Daniel Lanzaro is culpable for his irresponsible and self-indulgent conduct. The team, the stadium and the league may have created an atmosphere that embraces drunken revelry, but no one forced him to get plastered.

On the other hand, should sports teams be expected to promote more sensible celebrating instead of trying to squeeze more juice from beer sales?

Does Aramark train its workers to follow the two-beer rule or refuse service to intoxicated customers? Does the stadium or team enforce or ignore their own rules — and are they at all useful or merely a farce?

On the other hand, is it reasonable or realistic to expect effective policing of fans who are determined to overindulge or don’t care if they do?

Besotted, obnoxious fans aren’t confined to a single sport. And to some extent, those who pay their money take their chances.

On the other hand, what risk is assumed by innocent motorists minding their own business?

Brooklyn Law School professor Anthony Sebok, writing on www.findlaw.com, argued that New Jersey law does not require the NFL or the Giants to protect the public from the misdeeds of their patrons or to make clear that excessive drinking isn’t essential for fun.

“As a policy matter, it would seem to be a good idea for the NFL and the Giants indeed to send this message. But as a legal matter, they do not now have a duty to do so,” he wrote.

Maybe it’s time for that to change.

Linda P. Campbell is a columnist and editorial writer for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Her e-mail address is lcampbell@star-telegram.com.