 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greenwalt v. Ram Restaurant Corp. of Wyoming6/26/2003
, and having considered the prior common law decisions and statutory law, we can confidently conclude that the legislative objective of § 301 is unmistakably what the defenders of that law have identified: a comprehensive statutory tort claim affecting liquor providers (both licensee and onlicensees), intoxicated customers/guests of all liquor providers, and third parties who are damaged by intoxicated customers/guests.
Maj. op. at .
Without an expressly stated legislative purpose, all these characterizations of the legislative purpose require some degree of speculation. However, each characterization ultimately relates to protection of the public and public safety.
3. Rational Relationship Between Legislative Classification and Objective
Having identified the class harmed by the legislation and the public purpose of the statute, we must examine the characteristic of the disadvantaged class justifying the disparate treatment and how that is relevant to the statute's purpose. In other words, is there a rational relationship between the purpose of the statute and a characteristic of the class harmed by the legislation? The fatal flaw in Wyoming's dram-shop statute appears in the final step of the Johnson test particularly because a reviewing court is no longer free to imagine any set of facts which could make the statute appear constitutional. Johnson, 838 P.2d at 167. Can it be argued that preventing a tort victim from seeking damages for anegligent alcohol provider's share of responsibility is rationally related to protection of the public? I struggle to see the connection. It may be true that subjecting violators of Title 12 to liability encourages compliance with § 12-8-301. However, it does not logically follow that granting immunity to negligent alcohol providers who comply with Title 12 will somehow promote public safety. Under the statute, an alcohol provider may be motivated to diligently comply with each Title 12 requirement to avoid liability, such as refusing to serve minors or intoxicated persons in drive-in areas, observing mandatory hours of operation, and following the myriad of other Title 12 requirements. Yet, under § 12-8-301 the same alcohol provider has no legal incentive to refrain from serving more alcohol to an already intoxicated individual inside the establishment. Both McClellan and the 1985 statute had the effect of encouraging compliance with Title 12 by holding all persons liable who illegally provided alcohol while also protecting the public by imposing that same liability on licensees who failed to exercise reasonable care in serving alcohol to intoxicated persons inside the establishment. Viewed from this perspective, it is difficult to imagine how § 12-8-301 is rationally related to a legitimate state interest. This is particularly true in light of the fact that the statute significantly curtails both the rights of tort victims and the responsibilities of liquor vendors as those rights and responsibilities existed after McClellan and prior to the 1986 amendment to § 12-8-301.
When an intoxicated individual leaves the provider's premises, the public is in danger. Usually, but not always, the heightened risk of harm to the public results from alcohol-related traffic accidents that are tragic and foreseeable events, evident in alarming statistics. Regrettably, accidents involving intoxicated drivers in Wyoming are commonplace. In 1986, the year the legislature enacted § 12-8-301, there were 146 fatal vehicular accidents in Wyoming. Wyoming's Comprehensive Report on Traffic Accidents, Wyoming Highway Department, Highway Safety Branch, Accident Data Management Section at 149 (1986). Seventy-one vehicular accidents, or 48.6
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|