No. 14313
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1978
THOMAS KENT RUNGE,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
CECIL T. WATTS, JR., as Special Administrator
of the estate of David Allen Watts, Deceased;
CECIL T. WATTS, JR., individually
MARLENE WATTS, his wife; and DORIS M. POPPLER,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
District,
Honorable C. B. Sande, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Krutzfeldt and Haker, Miles City, Montana
William J. Krutzfeldt argued, Miles City, Montana
For Respondents:
Moulton, Bellingham, Longo and Mather, Billings,
Montana
McNamer, Thompson and Cashmore, Billings, Montana
Charles R. Cashmore argued, Billings, Montana
Submitted: December 18, 1978
JArI 1 :1:
Decided :
;s
Filed:
Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.
P l a i n t i f f b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of
t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t i n Y e l l o w s t o n e County
a l l e g i n g n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of d e f e n d a n t i n s e r v i n g
a l c o h o l t o a minor whose i n t o x i c a t i o n a l l e g e d l y r e s u l t e d i n
a c a r accident causing p l a i n t i f f ' s injury. P l a i n t i f f appeals
from a n o r d e r and judgment d i s m i s s i n g h i s c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t
d e f e n d a n t P o p p l e r on t h e ground t h a t it f a i l s t o s t a t e a
c l a i m upon which r e l i e f c a n b e g r a n t e d .
On A p r i l 2 6 , 1975, David A l l e n W a t t s , t h e n a m i n o r ,
a t t e n d e d a p a r t y a t t h e home of d e f e n d a n t , D o r i s P o p p l e r ,
and d r a n k some b e e r , a l l e g e d l y f u r n i s h e d by d e f e n d a n t .
P l a i n t i f f , Thomas Runge, l e f t t h e p a r t y w i t h Watts and w a s
s u b s e q u e n t l y i n j u r e d when W a t t s ' c a r l e f t t h e r o a d and
struck a u t i l i t y pole.
The i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t
Court e r r e d i n dismissing p l a i n t i f f ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t defen-
d a n t , D o r i s M. P o p p l e r . S t a t e d a n o t h e r way, d o e s Montana
r e c o g n i z e a c l a i m f o r r e l i e f a g a i n s t one f u r n i s h i n g l i q u o r
t o a minor i n f a v o r of t h o s e i n j u r e d a s a consequence of t h e
minor's intoxication?
P l a i n t i f f s e e k s t o impose l i a b i l i t y upon d e f e n d a n t
P o p p l e r on t h e b a s i s of common law p r i n c i p l e s of n e g l i g e n c e
and n e g l i g e n c e -r-
p e se. Defendant a r g u e s t h a t i n t h e a b s e n c e
o f a s p e c i a l dramshop a c t s p e c i f i c a l l y c r e a t i n g a c i v i l
remedy and c i v i l c a u s e of a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e s o c i a l p u r v e y o r
of i n t o x i c a n t s , no remedy o r c a u s e of a c t i o n can b e m a i n t a i n e d .
I n r e c e n t months t h i s C o u r t h a s had two o p p o r t u n i t i e s
t o a d d r e s s t h e i s s u e o f t h e l i a b i l i t y of one f u r n i s h i n g
a l c o h o l i c b e v e r a g e s t o a p e r s o n who s u b s e q u e n t l y s u s t a i n s
i n j u r i e s by v i r t u e of t h e r e s u l t i n g i n t o x i c a t i o n . Swartzen-
b e r g e r v . B i l l i n g s Labor Temple A s s o c i a t i o n ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
Mont. , 586 P.2d 7 1 2 , 35 St.Rep. 1625; Folda v . C i t y
of Bozeman (1978), Mont. , 582 P.2d 767, 35 S t .
Rep. 1019. I n each of t h o s e c a s e s , however, t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s
r e c o v e r y was b a r r e d by h i s own c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e . In
c o n t r a s t the i n s t a n t case involves injury t o a t h i r d party.
C o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e on t h e p a r t of Watts, t h e n , does n o t
b a r recovery by a t h i r d p a r t y .
A s i m i l a r q u e s t i o n t o t h e one p r e s e n t e d i n t h e i n s t a n t
c a s e a r o s e i n a commercial c o n t e x t i n Deeds v . United S t a t e s
(D. Mont. 1 9 6 9 ) , 306 F.Supp. 348. I n Deeds t h e Honorable
William J. Jameson h e l d , under t h e p a r t i c u l a r c i r c u m s t a n c e s
of t h a t c a s e , t h a t " t h e s a l e and s e r v i n g of l i q u o r t o Tanberg
i n v i o l a t i o n of Montana law was a proximate c a u s e of t h e
a c c i d e n t and r e s u l t i n g i n j u r i e s t o p l a i n t i f f . " 306 F.Supp.
a t 361. However, we do n o t f i n d Deeds c o n t r o l l i n g i n t h e
i n s t a n t case. R a t h e r , we f o l l o w t h e g e n e r a l r u l e :
" ... i n t h e absence of a s t a t u t e t o t h e con-
trary... t h e r e can be no c a u s e of a c t i o n
a g a i n s t one f u r n i s h i n g l i q u o r i n f a v o r of t h o s e
i n j u r e d by t h e i n t o x i c a t i o n of t h e person t o
whom i t has been ... furnished ... s o long
a s t h e person t o whom t h e l i q u o r was s o l d o r
g i v e n was n o t i n such a s t a t e of h e l p l e s s n e s s
. . . a s t o be d e p r i v e d of h i s willpower o r
r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h i s behavior." 45 Am J u r 2d,
I n t o x i c a t i n g Liquors S554.
The problem we f a c e i n s o d e c i d i n g i s a d i f f i c u l t one.
Montana law does p r o v i d e s a n c t i o n s t o d i s c o u r a g e f u r n i s h i n g
a l c o h o l i c beverages t o minors. First, s e c t i o n 4-3-306 (1)( a ) ,
R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s :
" (1) N l i c e n s e e o r h i s o r h e r employee o r
o
employees, nor any o t h e r p e r s o n , s h a l l s e l l ,
d e l i v e r , o r g i v e away o r cause o r p e r m i t t o be
s o l d , d e l i v e r e d o r g i v e n away any a l c o h o l i c
beverage t o :
" ( a ) Any p e r s o n under t h e age of e i g h t e e n (18)
years. "
By v i r t u e of s e c t i o n 4-6-404, R.C.M. 1947, v i o l a t i o n of t h i s
p r o v i s i o n i s a misdemeanor. While t h i s p r o v i s i o n does n o t
apply t o a s o c i a l purveyor of a l c o h o l i c beverages, s e c t i o n
94-5-609 (1) b ) , R.C.M.
( 1947, does:
"(1) A person commits t h e o f f e n s e of unlawful
t r a n s a c t i o n s w i t h c h i l d r e n i f he knowingly:
" (b) s e l l s o r g i v e s i n t o x i c a t i n g s u b s t a n c e s t o
a c h i l d under t h e a g e of m a j o r i t y . . ."
These s a n c t i o n s , however, do n o t by themselves c r e a t e a
c i v i l c a u s e of a c t i o n i n f a v o r of a t h i r d person i n j u r e d a s
a r e s u l t of a m i n o r ' s having been f u r n i s h e d a l c o h o l i c bev-
erages. E s t a b l i s h i n g such a c i v i l c a u s e of a c t i o n i n v o l v e s
c o n s i d e r a t i o n s of p u b l i c p o l i c y f a r beyond t h o s e p r e s e n t e d
by t h e circumstances of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e .
T r a d i t i o n a l l y , t h e r e h a s been g r e a t e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r
imposing l i a b i l i t y on a commercial purveyor than on a s o c i a l
purveyor. There i s a g r e a t e r need f o r some check on t h e
p e c u n i a r y motives of t h o s e engaged i n t h e b u s i n e s s of s e l l i n g
a l c o h o l i c beverages. I n a d d i t i o n a commercial vendor i s i n
a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n t o o b s e r v e h i s customers and monitor t h e i r
l e v e l of i n t o x i c a t i o n by v i r t u e of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s e l l e r
i s more l i k e l y t o communicate w i t h t h e p a t r o n each time he
s e r v e s a new d r i n k .
Taking t h i s i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n , we a r e r e l u c t a n t t o
extend t h e l i a b i l i t y of p e r s o n s s e r v i n g a l c o h o l i c beverages
t o a s o c i a l s e t t i n g when t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s t o d a t e f a i l e d
t o extend t h a t l i a b i l i t y t o commercial vendors by v i r t u e of
dramshop l e g i s l a t i o n .
W a r e aware of t h e h i g h i n c i d e n c e of automobile a c c i d e n t s
e
a t t r i b u t a b l e t o intoxication. W a l s o recognize t h a t innocent
e
t h i r d p a r t i e s s t a n d t o s u f f e r s u b s t a n t i a l harm i n such
situations. However, t o hold purveyors of a l c o h o l , e s p e c i a l l y
s o c i a l f u r n i s h e r s , l i a b l e f o r t h i s harm would be c o n t r a r y t o
t h e c u r r e n t s t a t e of Montana law and would i n f r i n g e upon a
m a t t e r more a p p r o p r i a t e l y w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e of t h e l e g i s l a -
ture. Our r e c e n t h o l d i n g s have r e a f f i r m e d our s t a t e m e n t of
t h e law i n Nevin v. C a r l a s c o ( 1 9 6 1 ) , 139 Mont. 512, 515-16,
"The r u l e followed by most c o u r t s i s t h a t when
damages a r i s e from v o l u n t a r y i n t o x i c a t i o n , t h e
s e l l e r of t h e i n t o x i c a n t i s n o t l i a b l e i n t o r t
f o r t h e reason t h a t h i s a c t i s not t h e e f f i c i e n t
c a u s e of t h e damage. The proximate c a u s e i s t h e
a c t of him who imbibes t h e l i q u o r . "
Under c u r r e n t Montana law, a s a f f i r m e d i n Folda and Swartzen-
b e r g e r , Watts' d r i n k i n g and n o t d e f e n d a n t ' s s e r v i n g t h e
b e e r was t h e proximate c a u s e of t h e a c c i d e n t which r e s u l t e d
i n p l a i n t i f f ' s injury.
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s a f f i r m e d .
Justice I -
W Concur:
e
/
/
c L-
- ~t/dv
r Justices
,'
'Mr.
/
Chief J u s t i c e Frank I .'Haswell, deeming himself d i s q u a l i f i e d ,
L
did not s i t i n t h i s case.