Elaine Johnson v. Brunswick Riverview Club, Inc., and Leiserv, Inc., d/b/a Brunswick Riverview Lanes

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel 12/04/09 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 2 2 9 ¬ 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1071128 Elaine Johnson v. B r u n s w i c k R i v e r v i e w C l u b , I n c . , and L e i s e r v , B r u n s w i c k R i v e r v i e w Lanes Appeal PER from S h e l b y C i r c u i t (CV-07-138) I n c . , d/b/a Court CURIAM. E l a i n e Johnson appeals favor of Brunswick d/b/a Brunswick collectively f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n Riverview Riverview Club, Lanes as " B r u n s w i c k " ) . Facts We Inc., and L e i s e r v , (hereinafter affirm. and P r o c e d u r a l History Inc., referred to 1071128 The evidence, Johnson, the Alabama, Inc., following On viewed in nonmovant, 613 Wilma So. 2d 14, son, Riverview Lanes, Brunswick Riverview Club, operation of on a and and to drink and an that between bowling favorable Fleming 1993), to Foods of suggests a r r i v e d at beer with alley using was the 5:30 the while sold tell bowling were alley inappropriate p.m. four and 7:54 60-ounce 2 Leiserv, license the Inc. for the Riverview Shawn bowling from the alley. telephone At approximately alley According they Brunswick Brunswick at intoxicated. Oden. p.m., Oden t e l e p h o n e d him bowling 3:30 at by the of p.m., join also bowling." 3:37 owns could the alone owned premises to he t h a t O d e n was of arrived Inc., and Scripps approximately alley the Scripps, employee f a m i l y who Oden, p.m. boisterous" b e c a u s e he was a most v. (Ala. at bowling club to Scripps "loud and a asked conversation p.m., Keith B e t w e e n 5:00 According Corp. 359 2005, Johnson's Scripps light facts. November Lanes. the to at "had and began Scripps, the to to bowl Oden bowling call 6:00 was alley, Keith down language i n the v i c i n i t y A credit-card receipt p.m. the pitchers employees of beer to of shows of the Oden. 1071128 Around 8:00 p.m., Oden drove his vehicle the bowling in which the bowling Shortly after a l l e y ; n o b o d y e l s e was i n t h e v e h i c l e . from leaving a l l e y , O d e n was i n v o l v e d i n a o n e - v e h i c l e he was killed. time of the accident limit f o r operating was Oden's 0.39, blood-alcohol level almost a vehicle. five See 32-5A-191, § accident times at the the legal A l a . Code 1975. The internal alcoholic-beverage-service Brunswick Riverview for consumption be u r g e d at Lanes p r o h i b i t e d s e l l i n g a p i t c h e r of beer by a single individual. s t a t e d t h a t any customer showing v i s i b l e should policy by t h e s e r v e r The policy also signs of i n t o x i c a t i o n o r manager t o use a l t e r n a t i v e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and, i ft h e customer r e f u s e s t o use a l t e r n a t i v e transportation, the employee should inform the customer the appropriate law-enforcement o f f i c i a l s the c u s t o m e r a t t e m p t s t o d r i v e a v e h i c l e away f r o m t h e b o w l i n g will that be n o t i f i e d i f alley. At the time of h i s death, owned a n d o p e r a t e d a landscaping t h a t Oden d i d n o t l i v e her any f i n a n c i a l O d e n was 31 y e a r s business. o l d , a n d he Johnson testified w i t h h e r a n d t h a t he was n o t p r o v i d i n g support at the time 3 of h i s death. Johnson 1071128 also testified receiving any that she financial did not support have from any expectation Oden in the of future. J o h n s o n p a i d $3,000 f o r Oden's f u n e r a l e x p e n s e s p u r s u a n t t o a contract she e n t e r e d into with a f u n e r a l home on N o v e m b e r 16, 2005. On May 5, 2 0 0 6 , Brunswick, 6-5-71, for a a s s e r t i n g a c l a i m under Alabama's A l a . Code training, and/or summary standing argued, Johnson, i n her i n d i v i d u a l 1975, supervision judgment, to b r i n g s h e was claim fails of claim of under that i t cause hiring, alleged, of action responded Dram dispensing that Shop constituted Act she had of Brunswick Johnson because, training, f o r the an i n j u r y have o r means o f argued and/or does not negligent to an to b r i n g recognize dispensing said, her a of remedy f o r adult. a that supervision the e x c l u s i v e alcohol she moved d i d not Brunswick also Alabama standing hiring, t h e Dram Shop A c t b e c a u s e , i t by t h e A c t . negligent unlawful negligent employees. a l c o h o l ; t h e Dram Shop A c t p r o v i d e s the of sued Dram Shop A c t , § not " i n j u r e d i n person, p r o p e r t y , because, common-law a arguing a claim s u p p o r t , " as r e q u i r e d the and capacity, claim mental Johnson under the anguish t o h e r p e r s o n and h e r payment o f Oden's 4 1071128 funeral expenses Johnson also misrepresent supervision assert alleges the in argued her Brunswick constitutes On judgment 8, i n favor that 2008, which the was her attempting that to and/or claim does n o t for negligently serving "[t]he this conduct which and/or s u p e r v i s i n g by trial entered court [she] of [Brunswick] i s are required of Brunswick, property. training, on t h e p a r t training, out duties April alleged negligence conduct of h i r i n g , to hiring, is liable argued injury Brunswick Johnson Johnson carrying that an negligent claim. that alcohol. constituted employees statute." a summary holding: "This matter came before the court on [ B r u n s w i c k ' s ] m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t f i l e d on or about November 15, 2007. The c o u r t h e a r d o r a l a r g u m e n t s on F e b r u a r y 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 . B o t h [Johnson] and [ B r u n s w i c k ] f i l e d s u p p l e m e n t a l memorandum on M a r c h 10, 2008. After consideration of the motions, p l e a d i n g s and arguments, t h e c o u r t i s o f t h e o p i n i o n that [ B r u n s w i c k ' s ] m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s due t o be g r a n t e d . The c o u r t f i n d s t h a t plaintiff, E l a i n e Johnson, mother of the decedent, brought t h i s lawsuit i n her individual capacity pursuant to Alabama's Dram Shop A c t . Alabama Code Section 6-5-71. The c o u r t finds that [ J o h n s o n ] was n o t i n j u r e d i n ' p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y o r means o f s u p p o r t ' a s contemplated i n the A c t . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s , and o t h e r s as s e t o u t i n [ B r u n s w i c k ' s ] b r i e f , t h e c o u r t hereby grants [Brunswick's] motion f o r summary judgment and d i s m i s s e s a l l claims by [Johnson] against [Brunswick]." 5 1071128 Johnson appealed. Standard In (Ala. Pittman 2003), applicable v. U n i t e d this Court t o a summary of Review Toll Systems, set forth L L C , 882 S o . 2 d 842 the standard of review judgment: " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s de novo. "'In reviewing the d i s p o s i t i o n of a m o t i o n f o r s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t , "we u t i l i z e t h e same s t a n d a r d a s t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n determining whether the evidence before [ i t ] made o u t a g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , " B u s s e y v . J o h n D e e r e Co., 531 So. 2 d 860, 862 ( A l a . 1988), and whether t h e m o v a n t was " e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t a s a m a t t e r o f l a w . " W r i g h t v . W r i g h t , 654 S o . 2 d 542 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) ; R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , A l a . R. C i v . P. When t h e m o v a n t m a k e s a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , the burden shifts to the nonmovant t o p r e s e n t s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g s u c h an i s s u e . B a s s v . S o u t h T r u s t Bank o f B a l d w i n County, 538 S o . 2 d 7 94 , 797-98 (Ala. 1989). Evidence i s " s u b s t a n t i a l " i f i t i s o f "such weight and quality that fair-minded persons i n the exercise of impartial judgment can reasonably i n f e r the existence of the fact s o u g h t t o b e p r o v e d . " W r i g h t , 654 S o . 2 d a t 543 (quoting West v. Founders Life A s s u r a n c e C o . o f F l o r i d a , 547 S o . 2 d 8 7 0 , 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ) . Our r e v i e w i s f u r t h e r s u b j e c t t o t h e c a v e a t t h a t t h i s C o u r t must r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to t h e nonmovant and must resolve a l l r e a s o n a b l e doubts a g a i n s t t h e movant. Wilma 6 1071128 C o r p . v. F l e m i n g Foods o f A l a b a m a , Inc., 613 So. 2d 359 ( A l a . 1993) [overruled on o t h e r g r o u n d s , B r u c e v . C o l e , 854 So. 2d 47 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) ] ; H a n n e r s v. B a l f o u r Guthrie, I n c . , 564 So. 2d 4 1 2 , 413 (Ala. 1990).'" 882 Co., So. 2d 690 at 844 So. 2d (quoting 341, 344 Hobson v. (Ala. American Cast Iron Pipe 1997)). Discussion First, Johnson alleges that the entering a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r Shop A c t claim to the her property Act. because, and an she she i n j u r y to her Johnson that her constituted Dram S h o p alleges anguish i n j u r y to her from that as the an person within loss the Dram injury required by payment of i n j u r y to her the her in of property her meaning of son the Act. Section provides, an mental erred demonstrated person, O d e n ' s f u n e r a l e x p e n s e s c o n s t i t u t e d an and court o f B r u n s w i c k on says, Specifically, trial 6-5-71, A l a . in pertinent Code 1975, part, as A l a b a m a ' s Dram S h o p follows: "Every wife, child, parent, or other person who s h a l l be i n j u r e d i n p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y , o r means o f s u p p o r t by any i n t o x i c a t e d p e r s o n o r i n c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e i n t o x i c a t i o n o f any p e r s o n s h a l l h a v e a r i g h t o f a c t i o n a g a i n s t a n y p e r s o n who s h a l l , by s e l l i n g , giving, or otherwise disposing of to another, c o n t r a r y t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f l a w , any l i q u o r s o r beverages, cause the i n t o x i c a t i o n of such person f o r 7 Act, 1071128 a l l damages a c t u a l l y damages." sustained, T h i s C o u r t has c o n c l u d e d t h a t that i t s purpose continue to to serve intoxicated." 320, is v. 324 sides Monte acknowledge able to r e c o v e r under who punish the owners after Carlo of they Club, taverns have who become I n c . , 587 So. 2d to be ( A l a . 1991). Both exemplary "§ 6-5-71 i s p e n a l i n n a t u r e a n d customers McIsaac a s w e l l as [was] injured that, i n order f o r Johnson t h e Dram S h o p A c t , s h e m u s t be a " p e r s o n i n person, property, Oden's intoxication. whether t h e payment o f Oden's f u n e r a l injury to Johnson's However, property the and o r means o f s u p p o r t " b y parties disagree whether to constituted expenses as an Johnson's mental a n g u i s h c a u s e d b y h e r s o n ' s d e a t h c o n s t i t u t e d an i n j u r y t o h e r p e r s o n f o r p u r p o s e s o f t h e Dram S h o p A c t . to involve In McIsaac, automobile under driver q u e s t i o n s of f i r s t accident, impression for this passenger and issues was severely h i s mother sued a appear Court. injured in bar others and t h e Dram S h o p A c t , a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s s o l d of the intoxicating The a These automobile i n which l i q u o r w h i l e he was son was already v i s i b l y passenger, a 21-year-old adult, 8 her testified a an the passenger intoxicated. t h a t he h a d not 1071128 lived was a t home f o r some t i m e . not a dependent because Furthermore, he had a company a t t h e t i m e of the accident. mother's he s t a t e d job with he telephone follows: claim, as This Court a that examined the "[The mother] a l l e g e d i n t h e c o m p l a i n t t h a t she e x p e n d e d v a r i o u s sums o f money on [ t h e p a s s e n g e r ] a s a r e s u l t of the defendants' alleged v i o l a t i o n of the Dram S h o p A c t ; h o w e v e r , t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e b e f o r e the t r i a l court to support her a l l e g a t i o n . Upon filing their motion f o r summary judgment, the defendants produced evidence, through deposition e x c e r p t s , t h a t t h e r e e x i s t e d no g e n u i n e issue of material fact as to [the mother's] claims. Subsequently, the burden s h i f t e d t o [the mother] t o show, b y a d m i s s i b l e e v i d e n c e , a g e n u i n e issue of material fact. Bridgeway Communications, I n c . v. T r i o B r o a d c a s t i n g , I n c . , 562 S o . 2 d 222 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) . "[The m o t h e r ] f a i l e d t o meet t h i s b u r d e n i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a n d i t i s now t o o l a t e f o r h e r t o p r o v e her allegations before this Court. This Court c o n c l u d e s t h a t [ t h e m o t h e r ] p r e s e n t e d no s u b s t a n t i a l evidence that she had been injured i n 'person, p r o p e r t y , o r means o f s u p p o r t , ' a s r e q u i r e d b y t h e A c t . We a f f i r m t h e s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t [ i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ] as t o [ t h e m o t h e r ] . " 587 So. 2d a t 325. The o p i n i o n d o e s n o t e x p l a i n the s p e c i f i c c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e mother's a l l e g a t i o n t h a t she had expended various indication the that specific adult son as sums this issue a o f money Court whether result of on h e r s o n , a n d t h e r e was p r e s e n t e d a mother's an with expending alcohol-related 9 i s no or considered money o n h e r accident can 1071128 constitute thus give an i n j u r y to property t h e mother a direct under cause t h e Dram S h o p A c t a n d o f a c t i o n under theAct. T h i s C o u r t s i m p l y h e l d t h a t " t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e trial at court t o support 325. Therefore, [the mother's] allegation." McIsaac i s not c o n t r o l l i n g 587 S o . 2 d i n the present case. Courts i n other j u r i s d i c t i o n s have payment o f f u n e r a l expenses held that a parent's f o r a m i n o r c h i l d i s an i n j u r y t o the p a r e n t ' s p r o p e r t y under t h e dram-shop a c t s i n t h e i r because t h e parent was o b l i g a t e d t o p a y t h e f u n e r a l e x p e n s e s , and t h e payment o f t h o s e expenses assets. Glaesemann 434-35, 130 N.W.2d 4 3 , 4 4 - 4 5 v. V i l l a g e o f H o l d i n g f o r d , 267 M i n n . citing i n turn 1957)). Also, Iszler (1964) v. Jorda, i n a motor-vehicle their "property" resulting holding that 66 I l l . D e c . 937 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , a tavern the parents total Herbes v. V i l l a g e 80 N.W.2d i n Ragan v. P r o t k o , son against (citing 7 5 , 8 5 , 125 N.W.2d 4 2 6 , 4 3 3 22 I l l . action impaired theparent's o f New B r i g h t o n , 268 M i n n . 4 3 2 , N.E.2d 745, killed states accident operator could 6 6 5 , 669 (N.D. A p p . 3d 2 5 7 , 383 of a brought to recover from t h e i r 10 parents (1963), 21-year-old a dram-shop f o r injury son's i n t o x i c a t i o n . n o t be injured in to In their 1071128 "property" w i t h i n the meaning of the voluntarily funeral paying or assuming e x p e n s e s c a u s e d by the Illinois by for liability Dram S h o p A c t or i n t o x i c a t i o n of their Appellate Court of I l l i n o i s a parent to his expenses, he basis the f o r such charges financial 261, m u s t be 383 and not arise responsibility N.E.2d a t has legally child's liable 748, due prior a a f t e r the 22 I l l . Dec. the A p p e l l a t e held to the for medical f o r the l i a b i l i t y must e x i s t Similarly, Court for son, " i n order e x p l i c i t l y held that recover medical and charges, to the 66 at and the creation of assumption voluntary fact." funeral of I l l . App. 940. D i v i s i o n o f t h e New York 3d at Supreme that "the 'Dram S h o p ' statutes do not authorize any r e c o v e r y b y a b e n e f a c t o r who m a k e s w h o l l y g r a t u i t o u s p a y m e n t s t o t h e h e a l t h c a r e p r o v i d e r s who furnish m e d i c a l s e r v i c e s t o a p e r s o n i n j u r e d as t h e r e s u l t of i n t o x i c a t i o n . A person making such gratuitous p a y m e n t s , as o p p o s e d t o , f o r e x a m p l e , l e n d i n g the money t o t h e i n j u r e d p e r s o n , i n f l i c t s e c o n o m i c h a r m u p o n h i m s e l f o r h e r s e l f , a n d c a n n o t be c o n s i d e r e d as h a v i n g been i n j u r e d i n h i s or her 'person, p r o p e r t y , o r means o f support.'" Dunphy v. 748 J & N.Y.S.2d further I Sports 595, 598 Enters., (N.Y. Inc., App. held: 11 297 Div. A.D.2d 2002). 23, 25-26, The court 1071128 " T h e r e i s no c o m m o n - l a w r i g h t o f r e c o v e r y i n f a v o r o f a p a r e n t who p a y s t h e m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s o f an a d u l t c h i l d , e v e n when t h e c h i l d l i v e s i n t h e p a r e n t ' s home. I n New York, a parent's r i g h t to r e c o v e r f o r m e d i c a l e x p e n s e s i n c u r r e d by a c h i l d i s g r o u n d e d upon the p a r e n t ' s o b l i g a t i o n t o s u p p o r t a minor c h i l d . " Dunphy, 2 97 A.D.2d at 2 6, 748 N.Y.S.2d omitted) ( d i s t i n g u i s h i n g Ray v. 612, N.Y.S.2d App. 634 court held that 495 parents damages f o r m e d i c a l on t h e g r o u n d a that may adult support child property dicta stated funeral not her the that position support' 620, 596 the t r i a l A.2d court's to that injured the meaning at an Dram S h o p A c t , 156 221 in 909. ruling Vt. which of to the relies 596 A.2d out-of-pocket the had care). injury ' i n person, Act, i n Ray expenses adult the actual Dram S h o p funeral 614, A.D.2d recover York's Johnson from [the deceased been within 1995), entitled constitute "[a]side expenses, themselves Div. u n d e r New (citations Cafe, for his medical i n C l y m e r v. W e b s t e r , which 598 the p a r e n t s of the i n j u r e d c h i l d should under Galloway's be expenses l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n to pay To at (N.Y. at child's] on 905 for parent's apparent (1991), medical parents and have p r o p e r t y o r means [Dram S h o p A c t ] . " However, i n Clymer, an 156 i t appears of Vt. that " t h a t l i m i t e d t h e damages r e c o v e r a b l e 12 1071128 by plaintiffs 'to medical services and guidance,'" Clymer, 156 Vt. Dewey's S o u t h 69 (1999) at r e v e a l s t h a t we 618 , that "[a] focus our drawn from person, property child's] Clymer may have or means Vt. 274, the held that funeral expenses property under Vermont's Thompson 733 reading A.2d of v. 65, Clymer had the more r e a s o n a b l e as event, an i n f e r e n c e to were not parent's is appeal. [Dram S h o p A c t ] . G i v e n any a lost whether the parents support' In See 279, more a c c u r a t e of death."). child's a to result the payment injury Dram S h o p A c t , we to injured of their extent of an that 'in that adult parent's d e c l i n e to follow holding. This payment Court of constitute of 90 8. Clymer i s t h a t the parents [adult that at under the opinion, then, and c h a l l e n g e d on A.2d 169 expenses not s i m p l y d i d not address cause of a c t i o n be 596 Inc., a direct of funeral s i m p l y was Royalton, (stating and the legally Dram now an an adopts adult injury voluntarily assumed rule child's to the Shop A c t . o b l i g a t e d to the In pay that that a parent's funeral parent's the case, does i n the Johnson not context was not expenses until she responsibility after his funeral financial 13 property present Oden's expenses voluntary 1071128 death. Johnson's assets Oden's i n t o x i c a t i o n . to her property trial court Brunswick Johnson under properly t h e Dram entered that of the loss person i n the context that of d i dnot e x i s t dispensing So. Dram she d i d n o t s u f f e r Shop Act. a summary of f i r s t the mental result Alabama's that impression the persons anguish Shop Act created she a new a t common l a w r e l a t i n g liquor. As n o t e d (Ala. 1979). unknown suffered We as a to her disagree. cause of action v . BP O i l C o . , 632 earlier, this i n nature. We h a v e a l s o h e l d t h a t s o u g h t t o be s u b j e c t e d Court, to the consequences Jones s t a t u t e s a r e t o be s t r i c t l y ex r e l . G r a d d i c k i n favor of f o rthis o f t h e Dram S h o p A c t . 2 d 4 3 5 , 438 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . penal an i n j u r y o f h e r s o n c o n s t i t u t e d an i n j u r y intoxicating So. 2d a t 324. by Accordingly, the judgment h e l d t h a t A l a b a m a ' s Dram S h o p A c t i s p e n a l 587 impaired claim. as a q u e s t i o n argues not involuntary Therefore, as t o t h i s Next, were McIsaac, " [ i ] t i s axiomatic construed to their Court has i n favor of operation." State v . J e b s e n S. (U.K.) L t d . , 377 S o . 2 d 9 4 0 , 942 Furthermore, t o t h e common "statutory l a w a r e t o be 14 remedies strictly f o r rights construed." 1071128 W e s t e n h a v e r v. D u n n a v a n t , 225 A l a . 400, 401, 143 So. 823, 823 where the (1932). In the vast majority has limited legislature a c t , by recovery as recognized person" the f o r mental authority who is from that was case anguish other jurisdictions, under " i n person, in by a i s allowed. anguish state's o r means of the is no was Dram S h o p that example, Utah s u f f e r e d by compensable under Utah's rule For 1 the a drunk d r i v e r dram-shop property, Alabama, jurisdictions, mental killed other recovery i t s terms, to i n j u r y support," child of the not citing Supreme parents an Court of "injury a in Act: "The r u l e t h a t ' i n j u r i e s i n p e r s o n ' means ' p h y s i c a l bodily injuries' and not mental or emotional i n j u r i e s i s w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d . See K n i e r i m v . I z z o , 22 I l l . 2d 7 3 , 174 N . E . 2 d 1 5 7 , 161 (1961) ( h o l d i n g that mental suffering resulting i n no physical i n j u r y i s n o t an i n j u r y i n p e r s o n a n d t h e r e f o r e n o t r e c o v e r a b l e u n d e r Dramshop A c t i n a c t i o n b r o u g h t by wife f o l l o w i n g death of husband); Robertson v. W h i t e , 11 I l l . App. 2 d 177 , 136 N.E.2d 550, 554 (1956) ( h o l d i n g t h a t e m o t i o n a l p a i n and suffering a r e not c o m p e n s a b l e i n j u r i e s u n d e r Dramshop A c t ) ; S t a t e F a r m M u t . A u t o . I n s . Co. v . I s l e , 265 Minn. 360 , 122 N.W.2d 3 6 , 41 (1963) (stating wife not On t h e o t h e r h a n d , i n j u r i s d i c t i o n s w h e r e t h e d r a m - s h o p a c t i s w o r d e d so as t o a l l o w r e c o v e r y f o r an i n j u r y " i n p e r s o n , p r o p e r t y , means o f s u p p o r t , o r o t h e r w i s e , " d a m a g e s f o r m e n t a l a n g u i s h may be r e c o v e r e d . S e e , e . g . , W i n j e v . C a v a l r y V e t e r a n s o f S y r a c u s e , I n c . , 130 M i s c . 2 d 5 8 0 , 497 N . Y . S . 2 d 291 (N.Y. Sup. C t . 1 9 8 5 ) . 1 15 1071128 entitled t o damages f o r i n j u r y to person under D r a m s h o p A c t b a s e d on h e r m e n t a l s u f f e r i n g w h e r e s h e d i d not s u s t a i n accompanying p h y s i c a l i n j u r y ) ; Lyons v . T i e d e m a n n , 135 A . D . 2 d 5 0 9 , 522 N.Y.S.2d 159, 160-61 (1987) ( s t a t i n g p l a i n t i f f s c o u l d n o t r e c o v e r f o r c o n s c i o u s p a i n and s u f f e r i n g and w r o n g f u l d e a t h u n d e r D r a m s h o p A c t ) . See g e n e r a l l y G e o r g e A. L o c k e , A n n o t a t i o n , R e c o v e r y U n d e r C i v i l Damage ( D r a m - S h o p ) Act for Intangibles such as Mental Anguish, Embarrassment, Loss of A f f e c t i o n or Companionship, o r t h e L i k e , 78 A . L . R . 3 d 1199 (1977); A n n o t a t i o n , What C o n s t i t u t e s 'Injury i n Person or P r o p e r t y ' W i t h i n C i v i l Damage o r D r a m s h o p A c t , 6 A . L . R . 2 d 798 (19 4 9 ) . " Adkins v. In the Uncle the present language legislatively has rule I n c . , 1 P.3d 528, case, this Court of Alabama's Dram Shop A c t c r e a t e d remedies allowed. general Bart's, Accordingly, i n person" not enlarge i t s those the legislature the accepted Dram Shop A c t . To h o l d o t h e r w i s e would usurp the f u n c t i o n of the l e g i s l a t u r e and the w e l l statutes not context of established are penal principle the of strictly i n character i n favor t o be s u b j e c t e d t o t h e i r o p e r a t i o n . need general that does widely an sought i n the construe and adopt anguish strictly 2000). constitute ignore mental (Utah not "injury that must beyond we 534 to decide at t h i s rule anguish also exists suffers time whether when t h e p a r t y of the persons F u r t h e r m o r e , we e x c e p t i o n to do this s e e k i n g damages f o r m e n t a l a physical bodily 16 an construing i n j u r y because Johnson 1071128 has not alleged Therefore, the any such the mental loss of her anguish son does person i n the context court properly Brunswick Finally, entering a alleges that Brunswick responds appropriate because, Instead, [she] based alleges required i s policies case." which by on that in to her the trial favor of "[t]he [Brunswick's] erred t h e summary j u d g m e n t and negligent imposed by in of a t 24. 17 a claim alcohol. conduct which hiring/training the [Brunswick's] employees ignored Johnson's b r i e f , was that her claim i s dispensing conduct a i t s employees i n c a r r y i n g out d u t i e s statute in i s in reality of alcohol, Johnson r e p l i e s that court and/or s u p e r v i s i o n of dispensing the negligent alleges and/or s u p e r v i s i n g are injury from o f B r u n s w i c k on h e r c l a i m Johnson's c l a i m the negligent Johnson an the t r i a l training, i t says, Alabama does n o t r e c o g n i z e . claim case. resulted judgment a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r employees. a alleges Shop A c t ; t h u s , summary hiring, not present claim. Johnson alleging the not c o n s t i t u t e a l l e g i n g the negligent claim in Johnson o f t h e Dram entered on t h i s injury many which written i n the present 1071128 It i s well established a common l a w c a u s e that of action "Alabama does not recognize f o r n e g l i g e n c e i n t h e dram shop c o n t e x t . " J a c k s o n v . A z a l e a C i t y R a c i n g C l u b , I n c . , 553 So. 2 d 112, of 113 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . jurisdictions law cause of alcohol." 159, exclusive This i n our nation, action Hammonds ( A l a . 1987). The like W i l l i a m s v. Reasoner, long-standing refusal at least i npart, of alcohol of Shop Jones, of I n c . , 511 So. 2 d Act provides the of alcohol t o an 668 S o . 2 d 5 4 1 , 542 ( A l a . 1 9 9 5 ) . to recognize an a c t i o n based on o f a l c o h o l a p p e a r s t o be b a s e d , -- n o t t h e p u r c h a s e intoxication." a common i n the dispensing & Beck, Dram on t h e p r i n c i p l e injuries the majority not recognize remedy f o r t h e u n l a w f u l d i s p e n s i n g negligence i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n cause does f o r negligence Ward v . R h o d e s , 164-65 adult. "[T]his jurisdiction, that " i t i s the consumption o f i t -- t h a t resulting from i s the proximate the 632 S o . 2 d a t 4 3 8 . purchaser's Of c o u r s e , as w i t h other negligence-based claims, a p l a i n t i f f pursuing a claim of negligent must hiring, establish training, that proximate cause Mitchell, 277 of and/or supervision t h e employees' the A l a . 58 6, alleged 5 9 5 , 173 18 of employees incompetency was t h e injury. So. 2d See 57 6, Hathcock 584 v. (1965) 1071128 (holding that "the incompetent proximate In servants cause the master of unless the present i s not Shop case, "clearly" alcohol. an Act. not Johnson claim she at and/or supervised intoxicated allegation unlawful seeks the do allow. her injury acts of vehicle. the scope of consuming and i t an the act Dram S h o p A c t , the 19 of trained, serving to visibly Such the court an alleged to do so decisions to present cause Brunswick rather such Johnson's proximate subsequently trial merit failed c o m m i t t e d by and of attempts the the dispensing Court's p r i o r i n d i c a t i n g that cannot is claim, related has alcohol Therefore, the claim beverages." Johnson was her the "regarding which t h i s Furthermore, evidence outside alcohol, she negligently hired, directly Dram S h o p A c t , that negligent alcoholic of substantial alleged Brunswick with dispensing that Concerning this remedy a was alcohol outside However, i t s employees patrons outside not that of alleges 23. a l l e g a t i o n i s untenable. alleges recognizes a l l e g i n g the Johnson's b r i e f , complaint employed incompetency dispensing Instead, a their for having injury"). pursue a c l a i m of n e g l i g e n t Dram liable of that is than her son's driving a motor properly entered a 1071128 summary judgment i n favor a l l e g i n g the negligent of Brunswick hiring, training, on Johnson's and/or claim supervision of employees. Conclusion Based judgment on the foregoing, i n favor this Court affirms the summary Smith, Bolin, of Brunswick. AFFIRMED. Cobb, Parker, C . J . , and Murdock, Lyons, a n d Shaw, Woodall, Stuart, J J . , concur. 20

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.