 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Greenwalt v. Ram Restaurant Corp. of Wyoming6/26/2003
19, 122 S.Ct. at 1226. Whenever a court considers a matter where public sentiment is strong and emotions are high, it risks public alienation. Id. However, the Wyoming public has understood the need and importance of judges deciding important constitutional issues without regard to such considerations. In the final analysis, this Court has the non-transferable responsibility and the unavoidable obligation to decide. Id.
The Court's Past Decisions
"We presume the legislature enacts statutes with full knowledge of the existing condition of the law and with reference to it." Almada v. State, 994 P.2d 299, 306 (Wyo. 1999).
In Parsons v. Jow, 480 P.2d 396 (Wyo. 1971), this Court affirmed the district court's order which dismissed the tort claim of Parsons, an underage passenger in an automobile operated by McCall, also underage, asserted against Jow, the owner of a bar, whose employee had sold intoxicating liquor to the underage McCall. McCall had consumed the liquor, become intoxicated, and driven his automobile into a school building, causing permanent injuries to Parsons. Affirming the district court's order that Parsons' complaint against Jow had failed to state a legally cognizable tort claim upon which relief could be granted under Wyoming tort law, this Court recognized and applied the common law rule that no cause of action existed "against a vendor of liquor in favor of one injured by a vendee who becomes intoxicated -- this for the reason that the proximate cause of the injury was deemed to be the patron's consumption of liquor and not its sale." Id. at 397. Parsons had apparently argued that a Wyoming statute, then § 12-33, W.S. 1957, 1969 Cum.Supp., made unlawful the sale of liquor to an underage person; that the statute established a civil duty of care owed by the liquor vendor to a third-party like Parsons; and that the liquor vendor's violation of the statute, and thus the duty of care, was either negligence per se or evidence of the liquor vendor's negligence. Id. This Court rejected that argument because, even assuming the liquor vendor's violation of the statute (duty), the statutory violation (duty breach) "would not be a proximate cause of injury." Id. In conclusion, this Court noted that modification of the common law rule of civil non-liability of the liquor vendor was "within the province of the legislature." Id. at 398. Following this decision, the Wyoming legislature did not address the subject.
Twelve years later, this Court decided McClellan v. Tottenhoff, 666 P.2d 408 (Wyo. 1983). In that case, " he sole issue on appeal whether a complaint against a vendor unlawfully selling liquor to a minor [in his automobile at a liquor drive-in facility] who becomes intoxicated and injures a third-party states a claim for relief in Wyoming." Id. at 409. The McClellans' complaint alleged that the liquor vendor's employee, making no effort to check the identification of James Staatz, a 17-year-old who looked young, negligently sold liquor to Staatz who was in his automobile at the liquor vendor's drive-in window; Staatz became intoxicated and killed Chad McClellan in an automobile accident. Id. at 409, 414. Relying upon Parsons, the district court had dismissed the McClellans' complaint for failure to state a legally cognizable tort claim under Wyoming law. Id. at 409. Thinking that statements in Parsons concerning the legislature's province and proximate cause had misconstrued the nature of the common law, this Court overruled Parsons. Id. at 410. Relying upon the common law's inherent dynamic principle which allows the judiciallycreated common law to grow and to tailor itself to meet society's changing needs and relying upon the reasoning of common law d
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.
|
|