dissenting.
I.
The majority opinion finds no common law duty toward minors and thus no cause of action in this case. I respectfully dissent.
Although no prior Arizona case has addressed the specific issue of whether a social host may be liable for the foreseeable consequences of illegally furnishing alcohol to a minor, Brannigan v. Raybuck, 136 Ariz. 513, 667 P.2d 213 (1983), I believe contemplates such a duty.
There, the court considered the question of a licensee’s liability for damages resulting from the death of an intoxicated minor and his two minor passengers in a motor vehicle accident which occurred after the licensee served alcohol to the boys. The court reasoned that it was foreseeable that a minor served alcohol would become intoxicated and injure himself or others. The characteristic immaturity of a minor gives rise to this foreseeable risk. The court held that “a supplier of liquor is under a common law duty of reasonable care in furnishing liquor to those who, by reason of immaturity ... may lack full capacity of self-control and may therefore injure themselves, as well as others.” Id. at 516, 667 P.2d 213.
Keeping in mind the special status generally accorded minors by the law, I read Brannigan to recognize a common law duty of reasonable care when furnishing alcohol to a minor, regardless of whether the individual furnishing the alcohol is a licensee or a social host. While Brannigan involved a defendant tavern owner, it does not appear that the court limited its decision to licensees; it referred generally to “supplier” in its holding. Further, much of the rationale fits the instant situation.
*533The Brannigan court found support for a common law duty toward minors in three areas: Case law from other jurisdictions; general tort principles; and, Arizona statutory law. The court made the point that all the cases it cites “are but an example of the general rule that one who furnishes a dangerous instrumentality to a person not competent to use it is liable when that person misuses the item furnished and injures himself or another.” Id. The court then quoted the Restatement (2d) of Torts, § 390 (1965) for the rule that:
[o]ne who supplies ... a chattel for the use of another whom the supplier knows or has reason to know to be likely because of his youth, inexperience, or otherwise, to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm to himself and others ... is subject to liability for physical harm resulting to them.
(Emphasis added.) The general tort duty is not limited to licensees; it is all-inclusive.
The court, noting that it, like most courts, relied on statutes to find the existence of a duty on which to base a cause of action, found that A.R.S. § 4-244(9) and § 4-241(A) could serve as such a base because both constitute legislative recognition of the foreseeable danger posed by intoxicated minors. Both statutes prohibit a licensee or other person from selling or giving alcohol to an underage person, thus undergirding a duty toward minors.
II.
I agree with the appellant’s contention that A.R.S. § 4-312(B) is constitutionally invalid because it abrogates a right of action in violation of Article 18, § 6 of the Arizona Constitution. In applying Article 18, § 6, this court should be guided by its absolute duty to protect constitutional rights. Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., 1 Ariz.App. 562, 565, 405 P.2d 814, 817, vacated on other grounds, 99 Ariz. 363, 409 P.2d 285 (1965), citing Bristor v. Cheatham, 75 Ariz. 227, 234, 255 P.2d 173, 177 (1953). The constitutional mandate of § 6 is to preserve common law rights and correlative duties in tort. Marquez, supra, 1 Ariz.App. at 565, 405 P.2d 814. To carry out this mandate, we should apply § 6 broadly to protect the general right to recover damages and to include all actions recognized at common law. Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 152 Ariz. 9, 730 P.2d 186 (1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1029, 107 S.Ct. 1954, 95 L.Ed.2d 527 (1987).
Appellees would have us undercut the mandate of § 6 by finding that it does not protect a civil suit against a social host for damages caused by furnishing alcohol to a minor because such a suit just now comes before the court. Appellees admit that in Boswell, the court clearly did not limit the protection of § 6 to actions in existence in 1910 when the Arizona Constitution was adopted, but argue that in Bryant v. Continental Conveyor & Equip. Co., Inc., 156 Ariz. 193, 751 P.2d 509 (1988), the court did so limit § 6. A careful reading of Bryant, however, shows that court specifically left Boswell as good law, reiterating that Boswell held § 6 protects actions for negligence. Bryant, supra, 156 Ariz. at 195, 751 P.2d 509. Further, § 6 has been construed so that the phrase “right of action” is equivalent to the common law action for negligence. Landgraff v. Wagner, 26 Ariz.App. 49, 546 P.2d 26, appeal dismissed, 429 U.S. 806, 97 S.Ct. 40, 50 L.Ed.2d 67 (1976). Because the cause of action at issue here is a species of negligence action, it is protected by § 6 regardless of when it first appears in the Arizona courts. To rule otherwise is to violate the broad guarantee of § 6.
III.
Appellants argue correctly that once A.R.S. § 4-312(B) is invalidated, A.R.S. § 4-301 becomes dispositive of the issue in this case. On its face, § 4-301 immunizes social hosts from liability for death or injury caused by their adult guests. This section also operates to exclude that immunity where the acts of minor guests are involved. I reach this interpretation by following the rule of statutory construction which holds that the expression of one or more items of class in a statute indicates intent to exclude all items of the same class *534which are not expressed. Pima County v. Heinfeld, 134 Ariz. 133, 654 P.2d 281 (1982); Wells Fargo Credit Corp. v. Arizona Property and Cas. Ins. Guar. Fund, 165 Ariz. 567, 799 P.2d 908 (App.1990). Therefore, I read A.R.S. § 4-301 to permit the imposition of liability where the social host serves alcohol to a minor, i.e., a person not of the legal drinking age.
It is well accepted that the court has a general obligation to construe a statutory provision in the context of related provisions and in light of its place in the statutory scheme. Wells Fargo, supra. Construing A.R.S. § 4-301 to allow liability with regard to minors is consistent with the sanctions found in A.R.S. § 4-244(9) and § 4-241(A). A contrary reading of § 4r-301 creates contradiction within the statutory framework and is at variance with the legislative intent shown in the prohibitions. A statutory scheme that proscribes furnishing alcohol to minors for public policy reasons, and then attempts to immunize the same act from civil liability, seems to have lost its way. Accordingly, it is appropriate to regain our bearing by looking to the Arizona Constitution.