At first glance it might look like a perfect case in which to invoke Connecticut's dram shop law: A bar patron allegedly drinks well past the legal limit of sobriety, hops in his SUV and roars off, eventually running down a 16-year-old girl on a quiet suburban street.

Dram shop laws, which date to the 19th century in this state, have for decades provided legal penalties - currently up to $250,000 - for those who provide alcohol to individuals who later cause damage and death.

But in this case - the 2007 hit-and-run that nearly killed a 16-year-old girl named Emily Vanstaen-Holland in Quaker Hill - efforts to penalize those who served the driver could be in vain.

That's because Glenn R. LaVigne and his girlfriend, Jane E. Nelson, were allegedly drinking that night at Mohegan Sun.

The casino, like its cross-river competitor, Foxwoods, is owned and operated by a federally recognized Indian tribe whose tribal sovereignty provides it with far-reaching immunity from suit in state courts.

And that immunity was reinforced by a judge's ruling in the Vanstaen-Holland case last month, only days before the question of the casino's liability for drunken driving roared back into the forefront of the region's discourse, when a 23-year-old Navy machinist's mate allegedly left Mohegan Sun driving the wrong way on Interstate 395, crashing into a livery van and killing a 20-year-old Connecticut College student.

In a ruling filed Feb. 26 in New London Superior Court, Judge Robert A. Martin upheld a motion to dismiss claims of reckless service of alcohol brought by Vanstaen-Holland's family against the Mohegan Tribal Gaming Authority, its chief executive officer, Mitchell Etess, Tribal Chairman Bruce “Two Dogs” Bozsum, and the permittee and bartender from the tribe-owned bar where LaVigne and Nelson allegedly drank before the crash.

The dismissal ruling is in keeping with a series of rulings that have found that the agreement of the Mohegan Tribe and the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation to abide by state alcohol regulations do not undercut their sovereign status.

Instead, plaintiffs seeking damages after accidents caused by drinking at tribally owned and operated businesses have no recourse except the respective tribal courts maintained on the Mashantucket and Mohegan reservations.

The story could be very different in the case of Daniel Musser, the sailor accused of slamming into a livery van carrying the Conn College students to Bosoton's Logan International Airport last weekend.

Musser has told police he was drinking at Ultra 88, a nightclub located inside Mohegan Sun but owned by an outside company controlled by a Boston nightlife magnate, Patrick T. Lyons.

In interviews last week, state officials, including Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, have said the nontribal businesses controlling Ultra 88, including the permittee, Plan B LLC, and Lyons' company, the Lyons Group, could face lawsuits in state, not just tribal, courts. In previous published reports, Lyons has said the Lyons Group, which operates high-profile establishments around Boston, including the Bleacher Bar at Fenway Park, attracts “north of $50 million” in annual business.

”Ultra 88 and its permittees can be held accountable,” Blumenthal said in an interview. “They are liable under the dram act, and also possibly under common-law reckless claims. The basic rule is if it's not tribal, they are liable.”

Lyons and the Lyons Group did not respond to messages seeking comment for this article.

Officials from both tribes defend the legal recourse offered in their tribal courts.

Both tribes explicitly agree to permit claims about alcohol-related offenses to be brought against them, but only in their respective tribal courts, legal officials said.

The Mashantucket Pequot Tribal law includes the tribe's own version of a dram shop statute; Mohegan Tribal law simply provides a torts ordinance permitting injured parties to bring claims concerning reckless service of alcohol.

Along with other experts, tribal officials say the right to administer justice independent of state governments is an essential element of the sovereignty that federally recognized tribes enjoy.

”It's an exercise of the rights of self-governance,” said Helga M. Woods, the attorney general of the Mohegan Tribe.

But others chafe at the tribal court solution, including Robert Reardon, who represented Vanstaen-Holland and filed suit in state court despite previous precedents for the dismissal of such suits.

”I don't practice in the Indian courts,” Reardon said. “I refuse to, and I don't think you can get fair, just and adequate damages in those courts.”

Reardon cited the lack of juries and the limits on monetary damages that both tribes impose on claims against their governments and their properties.

Reardon also claims that the Mashantuckets have previously waived their sovereignty and agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of state courts in alcohol-related incidents, but attorneys from the tribe strongly dispute that claim.

Woods, the Mohegans' chief legal official, cited a 2002 Connecticut Supreme Court decision, Kizis v. Morse Diesel International, in which the court ruled that state courts lacked jurisdiction over torts claims against the tribe. A separate appeals court decision in 2004, Ellis v. Allied Snow Plowing, found that independent contractors of the tribes could be sued in state court, even if performing work for the tribal governments.

Meanwhile, other lawyers, including Mary Puhlick of Norwich, note that the tribes do not apply damage caps on outside entities who are sued in tribal courts.

Puhlick, who has practiced in both Mohegan and Mashantucket courts, will be in Mohegan court Tuesday to bring a reckless service of alcohol claim against Plan B, LLC, and said she believes it is possible that the best opportunity for legal action by the victims of the Conn College crash could be through the tribal courts.

But that is not solution enough for Reardon, who said he plans to file a motion for reconsideration of the judge's dismissal of claims against the Mohegan tribe and officials in Vanstaen-Holland's case, and will appeal if that fails.

The corporations behind the state's two huge casinos should be every bit as liable as other bar and restaurant owners in Connecticut if their customers get drunk and cause crashes, he said.

The state, Reardon said, was “eager to generate a great amount of money through slot machines” when it agreed to compacts that permitted the tribes to open the now-sprawling casinos.

”But,” he said, “it forgot about the rights of some of its citizens, like Emily.”

Article UID=047d37a8-7223-45ce-a0d8-0a907fb9384b