 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sanders v. Crosstown Market3/16/1993
id,
. . . we feel that liability should not be extended to one who acts only as a conduit in providing alcohol to those who directly serve it to others.
Conclusion
We agree with the conclusions of the Alabama, Florida, and Oregon courts. Scott had not been drinking when he bought the beer at Crosstown Market. Crosstown's employees had no obligation to anticipate that Scott might give beer to Sanders, and that Sanders might get drunk, and might drive under the influence of alcohol.
That Sanders was a minor does not serve to make Crosstown liable for Sanders's intentional misconduct. Sanders became drunk at Scott's party. Sanders violated 47 O.S. 1986 Supp. § 11-902.A.2 [86-11-902.A.2] when she drove under the influence of alcohol. Without both intentional acts Sanders would not have been injured.
We hold that the remoteness of Sanders's connection with Crosstown, combined with her own wilful intentional misconduct, placed her outside the limited exception to the common law rule of non-liability for sellers of alcohol that we created in Brigance, Id.
CERTIORARI PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, COURT OF APPEALS OPINION VACATED, AND TRIAL COURT JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.
HODGES, C.J., and SIMMS, HARGRAVE and SUMMERS, JJ., concur.
OPALA, J., concurs in judgment.
LAVENDER, V.C.J., and KAUGER, J., concur in result.
ALMA WILSON, J., dissents.
ALMA WILSON, Justice, dissenting:
Oklahoma is a notice pleading jurisdiction. The plaintiff/appellant (Sanders) is required to set forth a short and plain statement of her claim so as to give defendants/appellees fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. 12 O.S. 1991 § 2008 and Niemeyer v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 789 P.2d 1318, 1320 (Okla. 1990). "In assessing the sufficiency of the petition, the general rule is that a petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim . . . ." [Emphasis added.] Niemeyer, 789 P.2d at 1321.
Sanders sued the defendants/appellees, retailers of 3.2% beer, for injury allegedly caused by the wrongful selling of beer to a minor. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, to allow Sanders an opportunity to prove the alleged tortious conduct of the retailers and the cause of her injuries. Notwithstanding the early pre-trial procedural posture of this cause, the majority holds that the causal connection between Sanders' injury and the unlawful sale of beer by the retailers is too remote and affirms the trial court dismissal.
The selling of nonintoxicating beverages to any person under twenty-one (21) years of age is unlawful and a violation of 37 O.S. 1991 § 241 . Sanders alleged that the retailers violated § 241; that the retailers' violation of § 241 caused her injury; and, that § 241 was enacted to prevent her injury. These allegations are sufficient to state a negligence claim against the retailers. Hampton v. Hammons, 743 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1987) and Boyles v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 619 P.2d 613 (Okla. 1980). I agree with the Court of Appeals. The trial court erred in dismissing Sanders' petition for failure to state a claim for relief for injury allegedly caused by violations of the 3.2% beer laws.
Appellate review of the factual chain of causation of injury is premature. The appellate record provides no evidentiary basis for this Court's conclusion that the retailer's unlawful sale of beer is too remote in the chain of causat
Page 1 2 3 4 Oklahoma DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|