Henry Strasser was drinking at Rick Café Americain, the defendant dram shop, since 5.00 pm. He had two drinks of hard liquor, fourteen bottles of beer, and another drink purchased for him. He then stopped drinking at 10.00 pm only to return after forty-five minutes. His server informed him that he would not serve him any more alcohol after giving him tequila. An employee at the shop offered to call him a cab, a request that he refused. Leaving in his vehicle, Mr. Strasser caused an accident that caused injury and death to each of the client’s daughter. The client wants a civil action to seek damages from the café.
ARGUMENT OR ANALYSIS
Most states, though not
all, have dram shop laws that assign liability to businesses selling alcohol to
clients who are already intoxicated and proceed to cause harm to others under
the influence. In such a state, an individual who has been injured by an
intoxicated individual, in person or property, is entitled the right of action
against any party licensed under the state for the sale of alcohol, for causing
the intoxication of that person. Additionally, any person that rents, leases,
or owns the premise, knowing that alcohol is sold therein is also responsible
for causing the intoxication, severally or jointly with the alcohol seller (Pachecker,
2010).
Dram shop laws are drafted to increase responsibility
among alcohol sellers so as to deter excessive intoxication and the serving of
alcohol to minors. According to Kingston 505 N.E.2d at 324; for a dram shop to
be culpable under the Dram Shop Act, it must provide liquor sufficient to
cause, contribute to, or intensify the individual’s intoxication. This
is a substantial factor and the alcohol provided has to be an amount more than
negligible (Daller, 2019).
Most states with the Dram Shop Act allow third parties to
recover damages if it can be proven that they either knew or should have known
that a client was too drunk before serving them more alcohol. The conditions
presented in the case show that responsibility for the accident could be
shifted to the dram shop. It would not be an unprecedented move for the client
to sue Rick’s
Café Americain for damages.
In Illinois, for a plaintiff to recover damages under the dram law, they must prove that they bought alcohol from the defendant dram shop. The plaintiff must also prove that their intoxication was caused by the sale of alcohol and that the intoxication was one of the factors that led to the damages. These two criteria are met in this case since firstly, Mr. Strasser buys all his drinks from the same establishment. Secondly, the accident Mr. Strasser was involved in was caused by drinking under the influence hence the loss of life and injuries on the client’s daughters was caused by the intoxication (Pachecker, 2010).
Mr. Strasser had drinks from one establishment alone. In this case, the burden of proving that the establishment caused Mr. Strasser intoxication is minimal. The first and most crucial issue, in this case, is for the fact finder to identify the dram shop that intoxicated a patron. To determine whether the establishment merits a judgement as a matter of law, the court must first decide if it was culpable in causing Mr. Strasser intoxication (Pachecker, 2010). It is evident that the establishment caused the intoxication, which is the most proximate cause of the accident. If the bar had not later intervened with the drunk patron, it is very likely that the court would have merited a judgement on the establishment’s contribution to Mr. Strasser’s intoxication as a matter of law for the evidence of causation.
This case is unlike Kingston 505N.E.2d at 324 where Berry spent an afternoon drinking with friends in Kingston before travelling to MD’s Tavern for additional alcohol (Daller, 2019). The appellate court’s decision was reversed by the Supreme Court of Illinois and claimed that consuming alcohol from two dram shops may cause a single intoxication. The dram shops were not held liable as the rule did not require additional definition for causation. Proving the cause of intoxication usually becomes problematic if more than one dram shop is involved since all of them and not just the last one, is responsible for injuries if they are the proximate cause of the intoxication.
In past cases, dram
shops have been exempted liability for an accident caused by an intoxication
they are responsible for, if they took actions to prevent it. Bar attendants
are supposed to identify people who are too intoxicated and bar them from
getting more drinks. Some states have processed requirements to determine when
a customer should be cut off, which is helpful since an individual could appear
to be totally functional and still be drunk. Others, like, Missouri define
proof to be considerable uncoordinated physical action while other court cases
like Henry, 411 N.E2d t 541: Mohr v. Jilg, 586N.E.2nd 807.810 (III. App. Ct.
1992), assert that the amount of alcohol required to cause intoxication must be
determined by the trier of the fact. Therefore, it must be clear that the
attendants could tell that the patron was already too intoxicated before
offering them another drink (West Group, 2003). Though Mr. Strasser had already
had many drinks, the establishment’s attendants finally discover this fact and
act appropriately. They not only prevent him from getting any more drinks but
also offer him a cab to guarantee his safe way home. However, they cannot do
much as their offer is rejected.
It is an accepted fact that the establishment did not supply an insignificant amount of alcohol to Mr. Strasser. The alcohol served to the patron was enough to cause intoxication. However, the court must determine if the establishment’s serving of excessive drinks to Mr. Strasser implied that they were complicit to his intoxication. It must be noted that Mr. Strasser returned to the establishment after forty five minutes. After such a timespan, it would be viable to claim that the attendants did not recognize that the patron had been there earlier. This would also explain why he was served another drink. However, the attendant warned him that he would not serve him any more drinks, indicating that they had noted his intoxication either from a recollection of the number of drinks he had taken or from his lack of physical coordination. This is a proof of the attendants’ vigilance and alertness for drunkard behaviour sets them apart from the complicit alcohol sellers that the law intends to crack down to start with.
One of the most debatable factors in such a case is whether the servers could have reasonably identified that Mr. Strasser was intoxicated before he had too much to drink. It must be noted that Mr. Strasser had 2 strong drinks and 14 beers before having a drink purchased by another individual. Therefore, at this point, not only had the attendants not noted his intoxication level as another patron was also offering him drinks.
Dram shops can avoid
liability if they send their servers to a server education course; if they
encourage the customers not to become intoxicated by offering non-alcoholic
beverages; and if they encourage customers to take a cab home. This is
instrumental to the defendant since they clearly took actions to stop the
eventualities of that night. As it is not uncommon for the servers at an
establishment to forget the people they serve, especially if the bar is busy,
they may have lost count of the number of drinks taken by Mr. Strasser.
However, they managed to witness drunken behaviour or signs and attempted to ensure
safety (Pachecker, 2010).
In Tansey v. Coscia, 2015 NY Slip Op 31778(U) (Sup. Ct. Suffolk Cty., Sept. 21, 2015), the defendant was denied motion for summary judgement on negligent supervision and Dram Shop claims. The plaintiff brought a personal injury case against the defendant, alleging assault from another patron, Nicholas Coscia, while drinking inside the defendant’s establishment. The plaintiff claimed that he was hit in the face and struck to the floor, thereby sustaining serious personal injuries. The plaintiff proceeded to hold the bar accountable after obtaining a default judgement against Corcia (Pachecker, 2010).
In this case, the defendant may argue that they are entitled to a summary judgment since there is evidence that they were not complicit enough to let Mr. Strasser’s intoxication, which they are responsible for, to culminate in damages. A defendant who seeks summary judgement must establish its prima facie entitlement by affirmatively showing their merits of defence. The court may find the defendant’s evidence adequate to negate the possibility that though the establishment served Mr. Strasser enough alcohol to intoxicate him, they were also responsible for the damages caused by the intoxication. According to Thompson v. Tranberg, 360N.E.2d 108,110(1977), beyond causing of contributing to intoxication, the intoxication must cause or contribute to an injury sustained by a third party at the hands of the intoxicated. Due to the dram shop’s intervention, it cannot be concluded as a matter of law that there was a practical or reasonable connection between the defendant’s conduct, which was not faulty, and the accident (Pachecker, 2010).
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the plaintiff has
grounds for a Dram Shop Action. However, it is likely that the defendant will
motion for a summary judgement, which is a request for the court’s ruling that
the suing party lacks a case. A summary judgement takes place when there are no
facts at issue. It is likely that the court may agree that the case will not go
to a jury since the grounds for negligence on the bar’s part are not truthfully
founded. If the case happens to go in front of a jury, it is very likely that
they will clear the bar of their liability regarding the accident. The client
probably cannot successfully bring a suit against the establishment since they
took steps to prevent the client from causing an accident by offering taxi
services. The establishment is only liable if they not only caused the
intoxication but also failed to intervene by cutting off drinks or encouraging taxi
services.