PETERS v. SAFT
9/18/1991
Defendants Scott Saft, Kershaw Powell, Richard Whitmore, and the State, intervening as a defendant, appeal the decision and order of the Superior Court (Kennebec County, Alexander, J.) on plaintiff Edward Peters' declaratory judgment action. Defendants challenge the court's determination that the damage cap included in Maine's Liquor Liability Act, 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2501-2519 (1988), violates both the state and federal equal protection clause. Plaintiff seeks to reinforce the court's ruling by arguing that the offending provision also violates his right of due process, his right to trial by jury and his right to a remedy under the "open courts" provision of the Maine Constitution. By cross-appeal, plaintiff challenges the court's determination that other provisions of the Act are constitutional. Specifically, plaintiff challenges the fact that the Act excludes all other remedies, abolishes joint liability and requires a notice of claim. Finding no basis for declaring any portion of the Act unconstitutional, we vacate the judgment of the Superior Court and deny the cross-appeal.
Plaintiff brought an action against Saft, Powell and Whitmore, alleging that he attended a party held at the home of Powell and hosted by Saft. He alleges that while at the party, he was pushed into the shallow end of a swimming pool by Whitmore and received a serious spinal cord injury . Plaintiff alleges that Saft was a server of alcohol within the meaning of the Liquor Liability Act, that Powell knew that alcohol would be served, and that Saft negligently served Whitmore alcohol when Whitmore was visibly intoxicated. He sought actual and punitive damages for negligence, liability under the Act, battery and negligent failure to provide prompt medical care. A separate count of plaintiff's complaint challenged the constitutionality of the Act on a number of grounds and sought a declaration that portions of the Act are unconstitutional. The State intervened to defend the constitutionality of the Act and, after hearing, the Superior Court determined that the damage cap set forth in 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2509
I
In 1987, Maine enacted the Liquor Liability Act setting forth an exclusive remedy for persons injured as the result of negligent or reckless service of liquor by a licensee or any person providing liquor to another. 28-A M.R.S.A. § 2501-2519. Damages under the Act are limited as follows:
In actions for damages permitted by this Act, the claim for and
award of damages for all losses, except expenses for medical
care and treatment, including devices and aids, against both a
server and the server's employees and agents, may not exceed
$250,000 for any and all claims arising out of a single
accident or occurrence.
28-A M.R.S.A. § 2509. The Superior Court determined that section 2509 violated equal protection because
the special preferences which the damage cap gives to liquor
servers, compared to all other private citizens, and the
special handicap which the damage cap imposes on victims of
negligent liquor servers, compared to victims of all other
private negligence, involve discrimination which has no
rational basis in relation to the stated goals of the
legislation or any other legitimate legislative purpose stated
or unstated.
We conclude that the court misapplied the "rational basis" standard.
In considering an equal protection challenge to a statute, we have said:
It is clear that governmental efforts to alleviate social and
economic problems may draw constitutionally sound distinctions
among beneficiaries if the dissimilar treatment is rationally
related to the objectiv
Page 1 2 3 4 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys