Podbielski v. Argyle Bowl, Inc., 16

• Decision Date: 02 August 1974
• Docket Number: No. 16,16
• Citation: 220 N.W.2d 397,392 Mich. 380
• Parties: , 78 A.L.R.3d 1193 Juanita PODBIELSKI, Individually and as Guardian of Robert Podina and Florence Ann Podina, minors, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ARGYLE BOWL, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant. Juanita PODBIELSKI, Individually and as Guardian of Michael Sanderson, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ARGYLE BOWL, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 397

220 N.W.2d 397

392 Mich. 380, 78 A.L.R.3d 1193

Juanita PODBIELSKI, Individually and as Guardian of Robert

Podina and Florence Ann Podina, minors, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ARGYLE BOWL, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

Juanita PODBIELSKI, Individually and as Guardian of Michael

Sanderson, a minor, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ARGYLE BOWL, INC., a Michigan corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Aug. 2, 1974.

Irving R. Blum, Blum, Graber, Meklir & Rosenberg, P. C., Detroit, and Norman L. Zemke, Southfield, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Sullivan, Sullivan, Ranger & Ward by Edward M. Ranger, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.

Before the Entire Bench.

SWAINSON, Justice.

Appellee Juanita Podbielski commenced these two suits under the Dram Shop Act ¹ to recover for damages resulting from the death of her daughter, Mrs. Ella Loretta Podina. At trial in Wayne County Circuit Court plaintiff established that Mrs. Podina was killed at 2:10 a. m. on the morning of November 26, 1967, when the automobile operated by her intoxicated husband, Robert Podina, struck a fire hydrant and a utility pole.

The trial testimony indicates that Robert Podina began drinking in the afternoon and early evening of November 25, 1967 at the bar operated by appellant, Argyle Bowl, Inc. At approximately 9:30 p. m. Podina returned home and picked up Mrs. Podina who then accompanied him to the Argyle Bowl. Mr. Podina had several more drinks at the bar and became intoxicated. After the bar closed, he attempted to drive his automobile home. Shortly after leaving the parking lot, the car struck the fire hydrant and the utility pole inflicting the fatal injuries upon Mrs. Podina.

Appellee sought damages in an individual capacity for her daughter's funeral expenses and on behalf of decedent's minor children for the loss of services, comfort, companionship and love of their mother. The trial court did not bar appellee's argument concerning any aspect of the alleged damages. It did, however, restrict the scope of the recovery. The jury was instructed to limit its deliberations to the amounts established by appellee for the funeral expenses and the loss of services to each child. ²

After deliberating the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee individually in the amount of $1,730.70 and as guardian of the minor plaintiffs in the combined amount of $20,282. Appellant, Argyle Bowl, Inc., appealed the jury's verdict to the Court of Appeals and appellee then filed a cross-appeal seeking a new trial on the issue of damages only. The Court of Appeals found no merit in appellant's allegations of error but did conclude that the trial court had improperly barred the jury from considering the minor plaintiffs' claim for the loss of their mother's love, affection and companionship. Podbielski v. Argyle Bowl, Inc., 44 Mich.App. 280, 205 N.W.2d 240 (1973).

This Court subsequently granted leave to resolve an apparent conflict between the present case and the case of Barton v. Benedict, 39 Mich.App. 517, 197 N.W.2d 898 (1972). ³

In its opinion below the Court of Appeals explained its decision to reverse the trial court on the issue of damages with the following language:

'On cross appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by refusing to allow the minor children to recover for the loss of their mother's love, affection, and companionship. While no case on point has arisen recently, the Michigan Dram Shop Act has been held to permit damages for mental anguish (Johnson v. Grondin, 170 Mich. 447, 136 N.W. 423-434 (1912)), shame, disgrace (Spray v. Ayotte, 161 Mich. 593, 126 N.W. 630 (1910)), mortification (Lucker v. Liske, 111 Mich. 683, 70 N.W. 421 (1897)), and injured feelings (Radley v. Seider, 99 Mich. 431, 58 N.W. 366 (1894)). If damages are permissible under the dramshop act for the infliction of such emotional suffering, we see no reason to prevent recovery of damages for the loss of a mother's love, affection, and companionship.' 44 Mich.App. 280, 288, 205 N.W.2d 240, 244 (1973).

In contrast to the above quoted opinion stands the case strongly relied upon by appellant, Barton v. Benedict, Supra. In that case, plaintiffs, the parents of a deceased minor killed by an intoxicated driver, attempted to recover for mental anguish and the loss of their child's companionship. In Barton, the Court of Appeals denied such recovery stating:

'There is not, however, any right to recover for loss of companionship or mental suffering. Loss of companionship or mental suffering has been allowed under the dramshop act for such loss of companionship and mental suffering which arises out of the fact that a previously sober man is rendered a drunkard as a result of illegal liquor sales. Friend v. Dunks, 37 Mich. 25 (1877); Radley v. Seider, 99 Mich. 431, 58 N.W. 366 (1894); Lucker v. Liske, 111 Mich. 683, 70 N.W. 421 (1897).

'It has been held, however, that mental anguish resulting from an injury is not recoverable under the dramshop act. Sissing v. Beach, 99 Mich. 439, 58 N.W. 364 (1894); Spray v. Ayotte, 161 Mich. 593, 126 N.W. 630 (1910); Billett v. Michigan Bonding & Surety Co., 195 Mich. 202, 161 N.W. 908 (1917). Since loss of companionship can be considered to be merely a specific form of mental anguish, by inference damages for loss of companionship arising out of injury or death would not be recoverable under the dramshop act. See also Breckon v. Franklin Fuel Co., 383 Mich. 251, 174 N.W.2d 836 (1970), where it was held that loss of companionship was not includable as pecuniary damages.' 39 Mich.App. 517, 521-522, 197 N.W.2d 898, 901 (1972).

After reviewing the cases cited in the Podbielski and Barton decisions and the cases cited in the briefs on this appeal, we have concluded that the Court of Appeals in the Podbielski opinion below properly interpreted the scope of damages recoverable under the Dram Shop Act.

The statute itself makes no attempt to limit the scope of damages recoverable. In relevant part it states:

'Every wife, husband, child, parent, guardian or other persons who shall be injured in person or property, means of support Or otherwise, by an intoxicated person by reason of the unlawful selling, giving or furnishing to any such persons any intoxicating liquor, shall have a right of action in his or her name against the persons who shall by such selling or giving or any such liquor have caused or contributed to the intoxication or said person or persons or who shall have caused or contributed to any such injury * * *.' ⁴ (Emphasis supplied.)

Likewise, 'This Court has always construed this statute liberally, and has not deemed that the true legislative intent was to be ascertained by any strained or narrow construction of the words employed.' Eddy v. Courtwright, 91 Mich. 264, 267, 51 N.W. 887 (1892).

In several of the cases cited in both Podbielski and Barton the Court recognized that damages for mental anguish are recoverable under the Dram Shop Act. In many of these cases it is factually true, as appellant contends, that the mental anguish to plaintiff resulted from the transformation of a normally sober man (usually a husband or father of plaintiff) into a drunkard by the liquor sales. See Friend v. Dunks, 37 Mich. 25 (1877); Radley v Seider, 99 Mich. 431, 58 N.W. 366 (1894); Lucker v. Liske, 111 Mich. 683, 70 N.W. 421 (1897); Spray v. Ayotte, 161 Mich. 593, 126 N.W. 630 (1910); Ryerson v. Phelps, 163 Mich. 237, 128 N.W. 200 (1910); Johnson v. Grondin, 170 Mich. 447, 136 N.W. 423 (1912). However, contrary to appellant's implicit assertions, these cases do not indicate that compensation for other aspects of mental anguish is limited under the Dram Shop Act.

The cases cited in Barton to support its limited approach to damages were, in our opinion, erroneously relied upon....