Britton's Admr. v. Samuels
| Decision Date | 13 April 1911 |
| Citation | 143 Ky. 129 |
| Parties | Britton's Admr. v. Samuels. Britton, et al. v. Samuels. Britton, et al. v. Samuels. |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
Appeals from Mercer Circuit Court.
EMMET PUYEAR, ROBERT HARDING and E. M. HARDIN for appellants.
J. F. VANARSDALL and E. H. GAITHER for appellee.
These three suits grow out of the same state of facts and are considered together. The petitions allege that, in February, 1909, the defendant, H. E. Samuels, wrongfully furnished to Fred Britton spirituous liquors and mixtures thereof, which he drank and from the effects of which he died; that the said Britton was an inebriate, and intoxicated at the time the liquors were furnished him, and that these facts were known to the defendant; that the city of Harrodsburg and Mercer county, where the transaction took place, was local option territory, and that, because the said sales were prohibited by law, they were therefore wrongful, and that as death resulted from the use of said alcoholic liquors so sold and furnished, the defendant is liable in such damages for furloss as the heirs-at-law of decedent have sustained by reason of his death. A demurrer was sustained to each of these petitions, and this appeal is prosecuted to test the correctness of the trial court's ruling upon this point.
It is the contention of the appellants that, under Sec. 6 of the Kentucky Statutes, enacted pursuant to the authority expressly given in Sec. 241 of the Constitution they have a right to maintain these suits; that the sale of alcoholic liquor in prohibition territory was a wrongful act; and that, as it resulted in death, the case comes clearly within the statute cited. So much of this statute as is claimed to be applicable is as follows:
"Whenever the death of a person shall result from an injury inflicted by negligence or wrongful act, then in every such case damages may be recovered for such death from the person or persons, company or companies, corporation or corporations, their agents or servants, causing the same."
This statute was, as stated, passed to carry out the provisions of Sec. 241 of the Constitution, which is as follows:
It is the contention of the appellant that, under the provisions of the Constitution and the statute above quoted, the administrator had a right to maintain this suit, if it is such an act as will support a cause of action. But that if it should be held that the administrator had no right to sue, then under Sec. 1307 of the Kentucky Statutes the children had a right to maintain the suit. This section is as follows:
"Any person who shall sell, lend, give, procure for, or furnish spirituous, vinous, or malt liquors, or any mixture of either, knowingly, to any person who is an inebriate or in the habit of becoming intoxicated or drunk by the use of any such liquors, or who shall suffer or permit any such person to drink any such liquors in his barroom, saloon, or upon the premises under his control, or in his possession, shall be fined for each offense, fifty dollars, and the person so offending, together with the sureties on his bond, if he has executed a bond to enable him to sell liquor, be liable to a civil action for damages by the wife, or the father, or the mother, or the child of such inebriate, or person so in the habit of becoming intoxicated or drunk, in which punitive damages may be assessed; but the person so selling shall not be liable in a civil action to the wife, father, or other relation, unless written notice forbidding such sale has been given the person so selling prior to the offense...
To continue reading
Request your trial