Richardson v. Biff's Billiards Sports Bar & Grill11/18/2003
Appellant trustee seeks review of a judgment dismissing a dram shop action. Because an error in captioning a dram shop action can be corrected by an amendment that would substitute appellant widow, individually, and her minor children as plaintiffs, the district court erred in dismissing the action.
FACTS
On August 24, 2000, Eric Richardson allegedly was served alcoholic beverages at Biff's Billiards Sports Bar & Grill. On his way home from the bar, he crashed his motorcycle and died. On June 14, 2001, his wife, appellant, Ericka Richardson as trustee, commenced an action pursuant to Minn. Stat. ยง 340.801 (2000) (the "Dram Shop Act," also known as the "Civil Damages Act") against respondents Biff's Billiards Sports Bar & Grill (Biff's) and its owner Thomas Obert, personally.
Appellant brought the action as "Ericka Kathleen Richardson, as Trustee For the next of kin of Eric Matthew Richardson, Decedent." Biff's defended on several grounds, including failure to properly caption the case. Appellant acknowledged the caption was improper. Although the parties discussed potential stipulations, including an amendment of the caption of the case, no agreement was reached.
On March 28, 2002, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania issued an order placing Biff's insurer in rehabilitation and enjoining all persons from instituting or further prosecuting any action against the insurer for ninety days. As a result, the district court suspended all proceedings in this case until the order expired.
On September 30, 2002, appellant moved to amend the complaint to correct the caption. On October 26, 2002, before the motion to amend was heard and without leave of court or consent from respondents, appellant served an amended and supplemental complaint on Obert's wife, Mary Obert, adding her as a defendant and containing a corrected caption, listing, as plaintiffs, appellant individually and as mother of the three children. Respondents then filed a motion to dismiss the complaints, asserting that the complaint failed to state a claim because it was brought in a representative capacity and that the two-year statute of limitations had expired on August 24, 2002. Although appellant asserted that the original counsel for respondent had orally agreed to waive the statute of limitations, counsel had changed with the insolvency of the insurance company, and the claimed waiver was denied.
The district court granted respondents' motion to dismiss, denied appellant's motion to amend, found that the Pennsylvania order did not toll the statute of limitations, no enforceable waiver of the statute of limitations had been made, and the two-year limitation period ended on August 24, 2002, and ruled that all other motions filed were moot.
DECISION
In reviewing cases involving dismissal for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Minn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(e), the question before the appellate court is whether the complaint sets forth a legally sufficient claim for relief. The standard of review is de novo. Bodah v. Lakeville Motor Express, Inc., 663 N.W.2d 550, 553 (Minn. 2003). Statutory construction is a question of law, which this court also reviews de novo. Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc. v. County of Ramsey, 584 N.W.2d 390, 393 (Minn. 1998).
Appellant's cause of action is premised on the Dram Shop Act, which states:
A spouse, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person injured in person, property, or means of support, or who incurs other pecuniary loss by an intoxicated person or by the intoxication of another person, has a right of action in the person's own name for all d
Page 1 2 3 Minnesota Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|