RUNGE v WATTS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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: ;s Decided : Filed: 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. Mr. 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 defend 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 p e se. and n e g l i g e n c e -r- 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. of Bozeman (1978), Rep. 1019. , Mont. 1625; Folda v . C i t y 582 P.2d 767, 35 S t . 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 . " a t 361. 306 F.Supp. 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 contrary 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. R.C.M. First, s e c t i o n 4-3-306 (1)( a ) , 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, p r o v i s i o n i s a misdemeanor. R.C.M. 1947, v i o l a t i o n of t h i s 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 beverages. 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 Swartzenb 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 / / - ~t/dv L- c r ,' 'Mr. / Justices L 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 , did not s i t i n t h i s case.

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.