ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
M. Scott Hall Martin T. Fletcher, Sr.
Barnes & Thornburg Christine M. Stach
Fort Wayne, Indiana Rothberg, Logan & Warsco
Fort Wayne, Indiana
In The
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
HALL DRIVE INS, INC. d/b/a )
DON HALL'S GUESTHOUSE, )
)
Defendant-Appellant, )
)
v. ) O2S04-0109-CV-423
)
CITY OF FORT WAYNE, )
)
Plaintiff-Appellee. )
)
________________________________________________
APPEAL FROM THE ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT
Cause No. 02D04-9912-OE-1226(A)
________________________________________________
On Petition To Transfer
August 16, 2002
DICKSON, Justice
The defendant-appellant, Halls Drive-Ins, Inc. d/b/a Don Hall's
Guesthouse, ("Guesthouse") appeals from a judgment finding that it violated
the City of Fort Wayne Smoking Ordinance. The Court of Appeals reversed,
747 N.E.2d 638 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001), and we granted transfer. 761 N.E.2d
418 (Ind. 2001). Concluding that Guesthouse does not fall within one of
the exceptions provided in the ordinance, we affirm the trial court.
Noting in its introductory clauses that children, elderly people, and
certain other persons are at special risk to secondhand smoke, and that
secondhand smoke induces various health hazards[1], the City of Fort Wayne
enacted an Ordinance prohibiting smoking in restaurants. Fort Wayne, Ind.,
City Code, Tit. IX, § 95.60-.70 (1998). Don Hall's Guesthouse
("Guesthouse"), a restaurant in Fort Wayne, was cited on November 18, 1999,
for violating the ordinance when a Captain in the Code Enforcement Division
of the Fort Wayne Fire Department observed patrons smoking in the bar room
area of Guesthouse. The ordinance expressly prohibits smoking in
"restaurants," §95.62, which it defines as "[a]ny enclosed building,
structure or area used as or held out to the public as having food
available for payment to be consumed on the premises, including bars,
coffee shops, cafeterias, cafes, luncheonettes, soda fountains, and
taverns." § 95.60. The ordinance provides four exceptions.[2] Guesthouse
was cited for failing to fulfill the requirements of the second exception,
which provides in relevant part that the following is excluded from
application of the ordinance:
A designated room or other enclosed area within a restaurant
otherwise regulated and subject to this smoking ban provided that
such area is completely enclosed and separate from the remainder of
the smoke free enclosed areas of the facility by solid floor to
ceiling walls and doors and/or windows which must remain closed
except for entry and exit of persons from the room or where a window
or door ventilates to the outside of the building. No restaurant
covered by this ordinance shall be designated a smoking area in its
entirety. . . .
§ 95.63(A)(2) (the "Enclosure Exception").
Guesthouse does not contest that its structure failed to satisfy the
Enclosure Exception. Instead, it argues that it fulfilled the requirements
of one of the other exceptions, which exempts from the smoking restrictions
"[r]estaurants as designated by Indiana Code 7.1-5-7-1, et seq. (concerning
minors and alcoholic beverages) as off-limits to persons under 18 years of
age." § 95.63(A)(1) (the "Bar Exception"). Guesthouse argues that it is a
restaurant designated under Indiana Code § 7.1-5-7-1 et seq. and therefore
the entire Guesthouse restaurant, or at least its bar room, where the
alleged violation occurred, is exempt from the smoking ordinance.
Interpretation of an ordinance is subject to the same rules that
govern the construction of a state statute. Ad Craft, Inc. v. Bd. of
Zoning Appeals, 693 N.E.2d 110, 114 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Words are to be
given their plain, ordinary, and usual meaning, unless a contrary purpose
is shown by the statute or ordinance itself. Cox v. Worker's Comp. Bd.,
675 N.E.2d 1053, 1057 (Ind. 1996). Where possible, every word must be
given effect and meaning, and no part is to be held meaningless if it can
be reconciled with the rest of the statute. MDM Inv. v. City of Carmel,
740 N.E.2d 929, 934 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (quoting JKB, Sr. v. Armour Pharm.
Co., 660 N.E.2d 602, 605 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996)). The "goal in statutory
construction is 'to determine and effect to legislative intent.'"
Consolidation Coal Co. v. Ind. Dep't of State Revenue, 583 N.E.2d 1199,
1201 (Ind. 1991) (quoting Spaulding v. Int'l Bakers Serv., 550 N.E.2d 307,
309 (Ind. 1990)). Courts must give deference to such intent whenever
possible. Thus, courts must consider the goals of the statute and the
reasons and policy underlying the statute's enactment. MDM, 740 N.E.2d at
934; JKB, 660 N.E.2d at 605. If the legislative intent is clear from the
language of the statute, the language prevails and will be given effect.
State ex rel. Ind. & Mich. Elec. Co. v. Sullivan Cir. Ct., 456 N.E.2d 1019,
1020 (Ind. 1983). "Where statutes address the same subject, they are in
pari materia, and we harmonize them if possible." United States Gypsum,
Inc. v. Ind. Gas Co., 735 N.E.2d 790, 802 (Ind. 2000).
Indiana Code § 7.1-5-7-1 through -15 ("Chapter 7") addresses the
exposure of minors to alcoholic beverages. It includes various sections
governing the provision of alcoholic beverages to minors, the use of
identification falsely stating a minor's age to purchase alcoholic
beverages, and the access by minors to places where such beverages are
furnished. Sections 9 and 10 of Chapter 7 define criminal penalties for a
minor to be in a public place where alcoholic beverages are furnished, and
for a person to cause or permit a minor child to be such a place. Chapter
7 contains only three references to the word "restaurant." In sub-section
11(a)(16) the provisions declare that sections 9 and 10 shall not apply if
the public place involved is "[t]hat part of a hotel or restaurant which is
separate from a room in which is located a bar over which alcoholic
beverages are sold or dispensed by the drink." Ind.Code § 7.1-5-7-
11(a)(16)(emphasis added). Section 13 enumerates various exemptions from
Section 12 which prohibits the employment of minors in work involving the
sale or furnishing of alcoholic beverages. Sub-section 13(a)(3)(B)
provides an exemption to a person between 19 and 21 years of age who
"serves alcoholic beverages in a dining area or family room of a restaurant
or hotel . . . under the supervision of a person who is at least twenty-one
(21) years of age, is present at the restaurant or hotel, and has
successfully completed a server training program approved by the
commission." Ind.Code § 7.1-5-7-13(a)(3)(B)(emphasis added). Chapter 7's
references to "restaurant" each describe an establishment which contains
both a bar room and a dining area or family room where minors may be
permitted.
To the extent that the Bar Exception of § 95.63(A) of the Fort Wayne
Smoking Ordinance exempts "restaurants as designated by Indiana Code 7.1-5-
7-1, et seq. . . . as off-limits to persons under 18 years of age," the
language of the exception does not exempt separate areas within
restaurants. Rather, Chapter 7 refers to the entire establishment as the
"restaurant." Thus restaurants that have no separate family or dining room
where minors are permitted are exempted from the Smoking Ordinance.[3] It
is less clear, however, whether the Bar Exception to the ordinance exempts
those restaurants that are only partially off-limits to minors, containing
areas where minors are permitted in a family or dining room. Guesthouse
argues that because such restaurants are partially "designated . . . as off-
limits to persons under 18 year of age," they are excluded from the Smoking
Ordinance.
Interpreted in this way, however, the bar exemption would permit
smoking in bar areas of restaurants with dining or family rooms, but
without the requirements for complete and total separation and enclosure
specified in the Enclosure Exception. Thus construed, the bar exemption
would nullify the prerequisite conditions of enclosure ordinance, and would
be contrary to the express purpose of the ordinance to reduce the exposure
of children to second-hand smoke. We decline this interpretation.
Guesthouse does not claim that its bar area met the requirements of
the Enclosure Exception, and it acknowledges that it is a restaurant and
"has parts separate from the room where the bar is located and drinks are
served." Br. of Appellant at 8. We find that the Bar Exception does not
apply to exempt the entire Guesthouse restaurant, nor does it exempt the
bar room, from the Fort Wayne Smoking Ordinance. We therefore conclude
that the trial court did not err in finding that Guesthouse violated the
smoking ordinance.
The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and SULLIVAN, BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
-----------------------
[1] These statutory findings state in relevant part:
WHEREAS people at special risk to secondhand smoke are children,
elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals
with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with
obstructive airway disease; and WHERAS health hazards induced by breathing
secondhand smoke include lung cancer, heart disease, respiratory
infection, decreased respiratory function, and bronchospasm; and
WHEREAS, the Fort Wayne Common Council finds and declares that the purposes
of this ordinance are: 1). to protect the public health and welfare by
prohibiting smoking in "Restaurants"; and 2). to guarantee the right of
nonsmokers to breathe smoke free air, and to recognize that the need to
breathe smoke free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke.
Fort Wayne, Ind., General Ordinance No. G-22-98 (June 23, 1998).
[2] The third and fourth exceptions to the Ordinance, which are not
at issue in this case, concern completely enclosed conference or meeting
rooms being used for private functions, and restaurants contained in, owned
by and operated as private clubs open to members only. Fort Wayne, Ind.,
City Code Tit. IX, § 95.63(A)(3); (4).
[3] We note that this construction appears to contradict an express
provision in the Enclosure Exception stating: "No restaurant covered by
this ordinance shall be designated a smoking area in its entirety." Fort
Wayne, Ind., City Code Tit. IX, § 95.63(A)(2) (1998). Because this issue
is not raised by the parties, we do not address the inconsistency between
the Enclosure Exception and the contrary express exemption granted under
the bar exemption to restaurants that are off-limits to minors.