 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lyons v. Nasby3/20/1989
also claims that the provider was negligent per se because section 12-46-112, 5 C.R.S. (1973) (beer code), and section 12-47-128, 5 C.R.S. (1973) (liquor code), were violated. In Largo Corp. v. Crespin, 727 P.2d 1098 (Colo. 1986), we determined that section 12-47-128(1)(a) was designed, at least in part, to protect third parties from injuries caused by the sale of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person. We stated that one of the purposes of the liquor code was to insure public safety. However, there is no indication that this provision was intended to protect an intoxicated person from the consequences of his own intoxication. The prohibition against serving alcohol to an intoxicated person was created to protect the general public from drunk driving accidents. See Bertelmann v. Taas Assoc., 69 Haw. 95, 735 P.2d 930 (Haw. 1987). I do not believe the legislature intended to impose liability upon a seller of alcohol to an adult individual, who voluntarily consumes the alcohol, and then by reason of his intoxicated condition, injures himself. I would, therefore, find that such a person is excluded from the class of persons protected by this safety statute. See Noonan v. Galick, 19 Conn. Supp. 308, 112 A.2d 892 (1955); Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (Del. 1981); Fisher v. O'Connor's, Inc., 53 Md. App. 338, 452 A.2d 1313 (Md. App. 1982); Cuevas v. Royal D'Iberville Hotel , 498 So. 2d 346 (Miss. 1986); Hamm v. Carson City Nugget, Inc., 85 Nev. 99, 450 P.2d 358 (Nev. 1969).
For the foregoing reasons, I would hold that a person who becomes intoxicated, and injures himself as a result of such intoxication, is solely responsible for his losses. In this way, personal responsibility is reinforced, rather than passed to another.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Colorado DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|