Belding v. Johnson

• Decision Date: 12 November 1890
• Parties: Belding. v. Johnson.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

86 Ga. 177

12 S.E. 304

Belding.

v.Johnson.

Supreme Court of Georgia.

Nov. 12, 1890.

Death by Wrongful, Act—Sale of Liquor— Civil Damages.

1. The facts that defendant furnished liquor to a third person while the latter was drunk, and failed to protect plaintiff's husband from such person, and that the latter killed plaintiff's husband in defendant's saloon, while defendant was present, deceased not being there as a guest, do not render defendant liable in damages for the killing, under Acts Ga. 1887, p. 45, allowing a recovery for death, caused by crime, or "criminal or other negligence."

2. Plaintiff's declaration alleged that defendant sold liquor to her husband and W. in the forenoon of a certain day; that a quarrel then arose between her husband and W.; that in the afternoon her husband went to the saloon, and W. being there the quarrel was renewed, and W. killed her husband; that W. was at the time intoxicated by liquors furnished him by defendant; and that defendant had sold liquor to W. when the latter was drunk, and known by defendant to be so. Held, that the declaration was properly dismissed, as the damages were too remote under Code Ga. §§ 3072, 3073, providing that damages are too remote which are only the possible result of the tortious act, or are caused by other contingent circumstances, and that "damages traceable to the act, but not its legal or material consequence, are too remote and contingent. "

Error from city court of Atlanta; Van Epps, Judge.

Following is the official report: "Mrs. Belding, as the widow of Neal Belding, sued Johnson and Whitlock, making the following allegations in her declaration: About 9 o'clock on the morning of April 26, 1889, her husband and Whitlock met in the bar-room of Johnson, and drank intoxicating liquors together, and soon became engaged in a dispute, which ended at that meeting in the bet of a watch, which her husband agreed, at the suggestion of Whitlock, should be held by one Sloan, a clerk in the bar-room. Her husband and Whitlock then left the saloon, but afterwards returned, and her husband said he would withdraw the bet, and demanded his watch; but'to this Whitlock objected, and Sloan refused to surrender it without Whitlock's consent. Her husband and Whitlock had angry words about the matter, Whitlock by that time being under the influence of liquor purchased at Johnson's saloon. Whitlock agreed to let her hus band have his watch, if he would pay Whitlock's expenses of that day at the saloon, which proposition her husband declined. This was about 11 o'clock in the forenoon. In the afternoon he went to the saloon, and demanded his watch again. Whitlock was then considerably under the influence of liquors, purchased at Johnson's saloon, and that, too, while Whitlock was drunk, and was known to be by Johnson. When her husband demanded his watch in the afternoon, Whitlock refused to allow him to have it, and they then quarreled in the saloon, in the presence of Johnson and his clerks, threatening to fight, and Belding made preparations to fight by pulling off his coat and hat, whereupon Whitlock, without cause, shot and killed him. Johnson was the owner and proprietor of the saloon, and invited her husband and all other persons there to drink, promising him and all others that he would maintain order, and protect all persons from violence by any person in his bar-room; but he not only failed to do this, but sold liquor to Whitlock when he was drunk, knowing that Whitlock, when under the influence of liquor, was a violent and dangerous man, and that Whitlock and her husband were angry with each other, and that Whitlock had threatened to whip her husband. Johnson and his servants continued to furnish liquors to Whitlock, when they knew he...