 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Winters v. Silver Fox Bar8/7/1990
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii certified the following question to this court:
Whether the sale of liquor to a minor (in violation of Hawaii Rev. Stat. § 281-78(a)(2)(A) [(1985 & Supp. 1989)]) who subsequently becomes drunk and sustains injury precludes the minor (or the estate and survivors) from suing the commercial liquor supplier.
On December 8, 1989, this court remanded the question to the District Court for clarification of the term "minor." On April 12, 1990, the District Court responded that "minor" for purposes of this certified question is an individual below the age of twenty-one (21) as defined by HRS § 281-1 (Supp. 1989).
We answer the certified question in the affirmative.
I.
On October 25, 1987 the Silver Fox Bar (Appellee), situated in downtown Honolulu, sold intoxicating liquor to Daniel C.
Ferris, an eighteen (18) year old minor, in violation of HRS § 281-78(a)(2)(A). Daniel consumed quantities of alcohol and subsequently while driving lost control of his motor vehicle and died. We note that the decedent in purchasing liquor from Appellee violated HRS § 281-101.5(b) (1985) and could have been subject to criminal penalty pursuant to HRS § 281-101.5(d) (Supp. 1989).
Appellant Mary Winters, mother of the deceased, filed a claim for wrongful death in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii against Appellee based upon diversity of citizenship alleging dram shop liability. Appellee moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
II.
Traditionally, at common law, a cause of action did not exist against dram shops when they sold or served liquor to patrons
who injured themselves due to intoxication nor when innocent third parties suffered injuries due to the tavern patron's inebriation. The rationale in support of the rule precluding dram shop liability was that the proximate cause of injuries due to the person's intoxication was the consumption of the liquor, not its sale or service. Ono v. Applegate , 62 Haw. 131, 134, 612 P.2d 533, 537 (1980).
In Ono v. Applegate this court recognized a common law dram shop action allowing a person injured in an automobile collision with an inebriated tavern customer to recover damages from the tavern that sold liquor to the customer. Persuaded by public policy reflecting a clear judicial trend across the nation to allow such a cause of action, we held that the liquor control statute, HRS § 281-78(a)(2)(B) (1976), created a duty upon commercial liquor suppliers not to serve a person under the influence of alcohol and that such sale or service of alcohol may be a proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon those within the protected class, i.e. innocent third persons.
However, we have refused to further modify the common law dram shop action to permit recovery against commercial suppliers of liquor by inebriated liquor consumers who sustain injuries because of their voluntary intoxication. In Bertelmann v. TAAS Associates , 69 Haw. 95, 735 P.2d 930 (1987), this court in holding that a decedent's estate and his survivors failed to state a claim against a commercial supplier of alcoholic beverages stated:
We agree with the majority of jurisdictions that
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Hawaii Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|