 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Klever v. Canton Sachsenheim9/15/1999
Torts - Wrongful death - No cause of action in Ohio against liquor permit holder by voluntarily intoxicated patron who is "underage" pursuant to R.C. 4301.22(A)(1) and 4301.69, but who has attained the age of majority, for self-inflicted injury due to being intoxicated.
In Ohio there is no cause of action against a liquor permit holder by a voluntarily intoxicated patron (or his representative) who is "underage" pursuant to R.C. 4301.22(A)(1) and 4301.69, but who has attained the age of majority, for self-inflicted injury (or death) due to being intoxicated. See R.C. 3109.01.
Submitted May 5, 1999
Jeffrey M. Klever attended a wedding reception at the Sachsenheim Club in Canton, Ohio, where he drank alcoholic beverages though he was only nineteen years old. He was killed in a single-car accident while traveling home from the reception.
Jeffrey's mother, appellee Patricia Klever, sued the club's owner, appellant Canton Sachsenheim, Inc. ("Sachsenheim"), for Jeffrey's wrongful death, alleging Sachsenheim's employees failed to properly verify Jeffrey's age prior to serving him, knew he was underage yet continued to serve him, and, as a result, negligently sold him alcohol in violation of R.C. 4301.22(A). The court of common pleas granted Sachsenheim's motion to dismiss, finding that Klever failed to state a cause of action under Ohio law.
The Fifth District Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that "an intoxicated patron or his representative may maintain a cause of action against a liquor permit holder under R.C. 4301.22(B) even if the patron was voluntarily intoxicated, where the patron is under age and therefor not capable of making a legal decision to become voluntarily intoxicated." It reasoned that to hold an underage adult responsible for voluntarily becoming inebriated would violate the intent of the General Assembly when it decreed that persons under twenty-one are ineligible to decide whether or not to drink. The court of appeals entered an order certifying a conflict after considering the variance between its decision and those of other districts. See, e.g., Cole v. Broomsticks, Inc. (1995), 107 Ohio App.3d 573, 669 N.E.2d 253; Walker v. Capri Enterprises, Inc. (1997), 125 Ohio App.3d 154, 707 N.E.2d 1201; Lee v. Peabody's Inc. (June 9, 1994), Cuyahoga App. No. 65090, unreported, 1994 WL 258640.
Case No. 98-1906 is before this court upon the allowance of a discretionary appeal. Case No. 98-1966 is before this court upon our determination that a conflict exists.
In Smith v. The 10th Inning, Inc. (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 289, 551 N.E.2d 1296, we reviewed the proposition that a liquor-serving establishment could be held responsible to a patron who self-inflicts injury or death due to being intoxicated. We held that an intoxicated patron could not maintain a cause of action against the liquor permit holder for injuries resulting from his intoxication. Today we are asked to decide whether the Smith bar to recovery applies where the intoxicated patron has not attained the legal drinking age (twenty-one) but has attained the age of majority (eighteen). We conclude that an underage adult who is served alcohol by a liquor permit holder is legally indistinguishable from the adult in Smith and may not maintain a cause of action against the liquor permit holder. Both the statutory text and case precedent support our Conclusion that Ohio's Dramshop Act does not provide an intoxicated, underage adult with a cause of action against a liquor permit holder for self-inflicted injuries.
I.
Ohio historically refused to recognize claims against tavern owners for any injuries caused by
Page 1 2 3 4 Ohio Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|