 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Miller v. United States11/19/2004
This opinion is subject to revision before final publication in the Pacific Reporter.
Federal Certification
This case comes to us from United States District Court. We are asked to determine: "Whether a federal government employee, who ordinarily would be immune from suit in cases of strict liability, may be liable under Utah's Dramshop Act if the Plaintiffs establish negligence."
We first comment on the scope of the question certified to us. As framed, the question invites us to stray beyond the scope of our authority. A federal government employee acquires immunity from suit through the operation of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the cases interpreting its provision. 28U.S.C. § 1346(b) (1997); Laird v. Nelms, 406 U.S. 797, 803 (1972); Dalehite v. United States, 346 U.S. 15, 44-45 (1953). The task of applying the FTCA to a claim is a federal question outside the bounds of our statutory jurisdiction "to answer all questions of state law certified by a court of the United States." Utah Code Ann. §78-2-2(1) (2002). Whether a federal government employee who enjoys FTCA protection "may be liable" based on our assessment of the nature of characteristics of Utah dramshop liability is an inquiry that impliedly invites us to apply the FTCA to state law. Were we to accept this invitation we would overstep our authority. We therefore expressly limit our holding to the nature and essence of state dramshop liability. Our references to the FTCA are intended to provide context for our discussion and analysis of the state law component of the certified question.
We hold that Utah's Dramshop Act is a strict liability statute. We further hold that Utah does not recognize a common law cause of action in negligence for the sale of alcohol to persons who cause injury to third parties while under the influence of alcohol.
BACKGROUND
John and Joan Miller were injured by Arthur Valle, an employee of the United States Air Force, who had been drinking liquor at the Noncommissioned Officers Club at Hill Air Force Base, located in Utah. An intoxicated Mr. Valle left the club in his car, driving at high speeds, and crashed into the Millers' car, seriously injuring them. The Millers filed suit alleging that Mr. Valle had been "negligently and carelessly" served alcohol at the club in violation of the Utah Dramshop Act and that the federal government, as the dramshop, was liable for the resulting injuries to the Millers. The federal court concluded that the Millers' claims did not appear to be "clearly answered under Utah statutory law and controlling precedent" and certified its question to us.
JURISDICTION
This court has original jurisdiction to answer questions of state law certified by a court of the United States. Utah Code Ann. § 78-2-2(1) (2002); see also Utah R. App. P. 41(a).
ANALYSIS
The Millers concede that the Utah Dramshop Act is a strict liability statute. This concession reflects a candid recognition that our cases have clearly enunciated our view that the Act "prescribes a form of strict liability rather than traditional negligence." Red Flame, Inc. v. Martinez, 2000 UT 22, 10, 996 P.2d 540. We have repeatedly stated that the purpose of the Act "was to compensate innocent third parties by making dramshop owners strictly liable without regard to the finding of fault, wrongful intent, or negligent conduct on their part." Adkins v. Uncle Bart's Inc., 2000 UT 14, 16, 1 P.3d 528 (citing Reeves v. Gentile, 813 P.2d 111, 116 (Utah 1991)). The Millers' concession would appear to fully answer the state law component of the certified question: Utah's Dramshop Act is a strict liab
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Utah Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|