Boutwell v. Sullivan
| Decision Date | 08 May 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 54733,54733 |
| Citation | 469 So.2d 526 |
| Parties | Deanna Wimmer BOUTWELL, etc. v. Billy Mack SULLIVAN. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
Louis Fondren, Fondren & Harris, Pascagoula, for appellant.
Ernest Schroeder, Robert J. Dambrino, III, Carolyn Dohn, Bryan, Nelson, Allen, Schroeder & Backstrom, Pascagoula, for appellee.
Before ROY NOBLE LEE, P.J., and HAWKINS and PRATHER, JJ.
Deanna Wimmer Boutwell, widow of Sidney F. Boutwell, Jr., brought suit for herself and minor children against Thomas Newell Branan, Billy Mack Sullivan, Charles D. Branan and Bruce Branan for damages resulting from the death of their husband and father, Sidney F. Boutwell, Jr. The lower court sustained a motion to dismiss the complaint as to Billy Mack Sullivan on the ground that no cause of action was stated against him, and the Boutwells have appealed here, assigning four errors they contend were committed by the lower court.
The complainant charged that on July 2, 1982, at about 6:30 p.m. the Branans and Sullivan gathered in a joint adventure at the residence of Sullivan, particularly on the patio of Sullivan, where he kept and served to his guests a keg of beer; that from about 6:30 p.m. until 12:30 a.m., the Branans and Sullivan drank beer together and became intoxicated by the beer; that Sullivan knew one or more of the Branans would drive a 1975 Ford Maverick automobile, in which they were riding, when they left his home; that he furnished the Branans beer after they became visibly intoxicated, in violation of Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 67-1-83(1) (1972), as amended; that after they left the Sullivan home, all the Branans were under the influence of alcohol from drinking the beer; and that Thomas Newell Branan, driving the automobile approximately 1 1/4 hours later, negligently ran into a 1978 Harley-Davidson motorcycle, driven by Sidney F. Boutwell, Jr., resulting in the death of Boutwell; and that Sullivan's acts in furnishing the alcoholic beverage beer to the Branans, particularly Thomas Jewel Branan, constituted gross negligence on his part.
Appellant's first two assignments of error contend (1) that the lower court erred in sustaining the motion to dismiss the complaint because it stated a cause of action against Sullivan based on logical reasoning, justice, and public policy of the State of Mississippi on the theory that one furnishing alcohol to an intoxicated automobile driver should be held liable for the consequences of that driver's acts, and (2) that Sullivan violated Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 67-1-83 (1972), as amended, in furnishing alcoholic beverages to the Branans.
Section 67-1-83(1), upon which appellants rely under Assignment # 2, provides the following:
(1) It shall be unlawful for any permittee or other person to sell or furnish any alcoholic beverage to any person who is known to be insane or mentally defective, or to any person who is visibly intoxicated, or to any person who is known to habitually drink alcoholic beverages to excess, or to any person who is known to be an habitual user of narcotics or other habit-forming drugs. It shall also be unlawful for the holder of any package retailer's permit to sell any alcoholic beverages except by delivery in person to the purchaser at the place of business of the permittee.
The above section relates to, and covers, a permittee or other person (ordinarily employee) who is not a permittee but is under the control and direction of the permittee. It applies to selling or furnishing any "alcoholic beverage".
Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 67-1-5 (Supp.1984), defines "alcoholic beverage" as follows:
(a) The words "alcoholic beverage" mean any alcoholic liquid, including wines of more than four percent (4%) of alcohol be [sic] weight, capable of being consumed as a beverage by a human being, but shall not include wine containing four percent (4%) or less of alcohol by weight and shall not include beer containing not more than four percent (4%) of alcohol by weight, as provided for in section 67-3-5, but shall include native wines. The words "alcoholic beverage" shall not include ethyl alcohol manufactured or distilled solely for fuel purposes.
It is obvious that the section upon which appellants rely, viz, Sec. 67-1-83(1), is not applicable to the case sub judice and appellant's reliance thereon is misplaced.
Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 67-3-53(b) (Supp.1984), makes it unlawful for the "holder of a permit authorizing the sale of beer or wine at retail: ... To sell, give or furnish any beer or wine to any person visibly or noticeably intoxicated,...." However, the appellants are not helped by that section since it applies only to the holder of a permit for the sale of beer or wine. We have been cited to no statute, nor have we found one, which covers the facts charged in the complaint.
Appellants argue that the complaint stated a cause of action against Sullivan because logical reasoning, justice and public policy of the State of Mississippi support the theory that one who, with gross negligence, furnishes alcohol to an intoxicated person about to drive an automobile, and, as a result of his intoxication, that person is involved in a wreck which injures or kills another person, should be held liable. Appellants urge this court to abrogate and repeal the common law, which holds there is no liability in such a situation. They cite Munford, Inc. v. Peterson, 368 So.2d 213 (Miss.1979), wherein we referred to Garcia v. Hargrove, 46 Wis.2d 724, 176 N.W.2d 566 (1970), 1 and the dissenting opinion of Chief Justice Hallows. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the common-law principle which was stated in Munford, as follows:
Under the common law, there is no action for damages in the selling or giving away of intoxicating liquors. The rule is stated in 45 Am.Jur.2d Intoxicating Liquors Sec. 553, at 852 (1969), as follows:
"At common law it is not a tort to either sell or give intoxicating liquor to ordinary able-bodied men, and it has been frequently held that in the absence of statute, there could be no cause of action against one furnishing liquor in favor of those injured by the intoxication of the person so furnished."
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cuevas v. Royal D'Iberville Hotel
...general public was held to be a protected class and decedent Peterson, a minor, was a member of that protected class. Boutwell v. Sullivan, 469 So.2d 526 (Miss.1985), involved an action by a third-party complainant against a social host for the death of the complainant's decedent alleged to......
-
Burkhart v. Harrod
...Bankston v. Brennan, 507 So.2d 1385, 1387 (Fla.1987); Miller v. Moran, 96 Ill.App.3d 596, 601, 421 N.E.2d 1046 (1981); Boutwell v. Sullivan, 469 So.2d 526, 529 (Miss.1985); Andres v. Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity, 730 S.W.2d 547, 553 (Mo.1987) (adopting analysis of Harriman v. Smith, 697 S.......
-
Rong Yao Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Rest.
...keeper. See, e.g., Keckonen v. Robles, 146 Ariz. 268, 705 P.2d 945 (Ct.App. 1985) (distinguishing Ontiveros, supra); Boutwell v. Sullivan, 469 So.2d 526 (Miss. 1985) (distinguishing Munford, supra note 6); see also Garren v. Cummings & McCrady, Inc., 289 S.C. 348, 345 S.E.2d 508 (Ct.App. 19......
-
Beard v. Graff, 04-89-00006-CV
...See, e.g., Bankston v. Brennan, 507 So.2d 1385 (Fla.1987); Gariup Constr. Co. v. Foster, 519 N.E.2d 1224 (Ind.1988); Boutwell v. Sullivan, 469 So.2d 526 (Miss.1985); D'Amico v. Christie, 71 N.Y.2d 76, 518 N.E.2d 896, 524 N.Y.S.2d 1, 62 A.L.R.4th 1 (1987); Great Central Ins. Co. v. Tobias, 3......