 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Colvin v. Sixty-Eight Liquors9/14/2001
REVERSING AND REMANDING
Randy and Vivian Colvin, individually, and Randy Colvin, administrator of the estate of Phillip Matthew Colvin , appeal from a judgment of the Marion Circuit Court dismissing their claims against Sixty-Eight Liquors, Inc. Sixty-Eight Liquors has filed a protective cross-appeal to preserve its counterclaim against Colvin for indemnity in the event this court orders the Colvin claim reinstated. We conclude the trial court erred in dismissing the Colvin claim and thus reverse and remand to the trial court.
Phillip Matthew Colvin was the driver of a vehicle involved in a head-on traffic accident in Marion County on June 2, 1995. The accident claimed the lives of five young men, and numerous lawsuits and claims were brought by and against the various parties and insurance companies. Colvin, who was sixteen years old at the time of the accident, was the sole occupant and driver of one of the vehicles. The other four young men who were killed occupied the other vehicle.
All of the parties' claims have been settled or otherwise resolved, other than the claims of Colvin's estate and his parents against Sixty-Eight Liquors and the claims of Sixty-Eight Liquors against Colvin's estate for contribution and indemnity. On June 19, 2000, the trial court entered a judgment dismissing Colvins' claims against Sixty-Eight Liquors. Because Sixty-Eight Liquors agreed not to pursue its counterclaim for indemnity against Colvin in the event the Colvin claim was dismissed, Sixty-Eight Liquors' counterclaim was likewise dismissed. Colvin's appeal and Sixty-Eight Liquors' protective cross-appeal followed.
The Colvin claim against Sixty-Eight Liquors is based on an allegation that Sixty-Eight Liquors unlawfully sold beer to Colvin, a minor. Colvin maintains that Sixty-Eight Liquors is liable for the Colvin claim against it because it illegally sold beer to Colvin and Colvin consumed the beer, became intoxicated, and thereafter drove his vehicle in such a manner as to cause an accident which led to his death.
The applicable statute reads as follows:
(1) The general assembly finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the serving, furnishing or sale of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury , including death and property damage, inflicted by an intoxicated person upon himself or another person.
(2) Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, no person holding a permit under KRS 243.010, 243.030, 243.040, 243.050, nor any agent, servant, or employee of such a person, who sells or serves intoxicating beverages to a person over the age for the lawful purchase thereof, shall be liable to such person or to any other person or to the estate, successors, or survivors of either for any injury suffered off the premises including but not limited to wrongful death and property damage, because of the intoxication of the person to whom the intoxicating beverages were sold or served, unless a reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances should know that the person served is already intoxicated at the time of serving.
(3) The intoxicated person shall be primarily liable with respect to injuries suffered by third persons.
(4) The limitation of liability provided by this section shall not apply to any person who causes or contributes to the consumption of alcoholic beverages by force or by falsely representing that a beverage contains no alcohol.
(5) This section shall not apply to civil actions filed prior to July 15, 1988. KRS 413.241.
In DeStock #14, Inc. v. Logsdon, Ky., 993 S.W.2d 952 (1999), the Kentucky Su
Page 1 2 3 4 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|