Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitplaintiffnegligenceliabilityduty of carecommon law
negligenceliabilitycommon lawappellantappellee

Related Cases

Estate of Brice v. Toyota Motor Corp., 373 P.3d 977, 2016-NMSC-018
View Case »
Caronia v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., 22 N.Y.3d 439, 5 N.E.3d 11, 982 N.Y.S.2d 40, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 19,295, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 08372
View Case »
Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co., 22 N.Y.2d 498, 239 N.E.2d 897, 293 N.Y.S.2d 305, 36 A.L.R.3d 891
View Case »
Sutowski v. Eli Lilly & Co., 82 Ohio St.3d 347, 696 N.E.2d 187, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,296, 1998 -Ohio- 388
View Case »
Wood v. City of Crooks, 559 N.W.2d 558, 1997 S.D. 20
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., 725 P.2d 300, 1986 OK 41

Facts

Shawn Brigance and his father brought a lawsuit against The Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., and its employees for negligence after Shawn was injured in a car accident caused by an intoxicated driver, Jeff Johnson, who had been served alcohol at the restaurant. The restaurant's employees were aware that Johnson was intoxicated and assisted him to his car after serving him drinks. The plaintiffs alleged that the restaurant's actions contributed to Johnson's intoxication and the subsequent accident.

The uncontroverted facts are as follows: the Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc. (Velvet Dove), by and through its president and principal stockholder, Richard Stubbs, and employee, Jerry Rimele, served intoxicating beverages to a group of minors, including one Jeff Johnson.

Issue

Whether a third-party passenger injured by an intoxicated driver has a civil action against a commercial vendor for the negligent sale of an intoxicating beverage to a noticeably intoxicated person.

The issue before this Court is whether, absent statutory authority to the contrary, a third party passenger injured by an intoxicated driver has a civil action against a commercial vendor for on the premises consumption for the negligent sale of an intoxicating beverage to a person the vendor knew or should have known was noticeably intoxicated and whose consumption of alcohol was the alleged cause of injuries.

Rule

A commercial vendor for on-premises consumption has a duty to exercise reasonable care not to sell liquor to a noticeably intoxicated person, as this creates an unreasonable risk of harm to others.

We, thus, hold that one who sells intoxicating beverages for on the premises consumption has a duty to exercise reasonable care not to sell liquor to a noticeably intoxicated person.

Analysis

The court analyzed the common law principles of negligence and determined that the traditional rule of nonliability for tavern owners was outdated in the context of modern society, where the risks associated with drunk driving are well-known. The court found that the sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person could foreseeably lead to harm to others, thus establishing a duty of care on the part of the vendor. The court concluded that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged a cause of action for negligence.

The court analyzed the common law principles of negligence and determined that the traditional rule of nonliability for tavern owners was outdated in the context of modern society, where the risks associated with drunk driving are well-known.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Oklahoma reversed the District Court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for further proceedings, establishing that a commercial vendor can be held liable for serving alcohol to an intoxicated person.

The judgment sustaining appellees' demurrer and dismissing appellants' complaint is REVERSED and the cause REMANDED for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Shawn Brigance and Earle Brigance prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal, allowing their negligence claim to proceed.

Shawn Brigance and Earle Brigance prevailed in the case as the Supreme Court reversed the lower court's dismissal, allowing their negligence claim to proceed.

You must be