Brooks v. Cook

• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: COOLEY, J.
• Citation: Brooks v. Cook, 44 Mich. 617, 7 N.W. 216 (Mich. 1880)
• Decision Date: 10 November 1880
• Parties: BROOKS and another v. COOK.

7 N.W. 216

44 Mich. 617

BROOKS and another v. COOK.

Supreme Court of Michigan

November 10, 1880

The right of action given by section 3 of act No. 193 of 1877 against a person selling liquors, for injuries to person and property from such sale, does not extend to injuries sustained by the person to whom liquor is sold, and whose intoxication is caused thereby.

Case made from Kent.

D.E Corbitt, for plaintiffs.

Stuart & Sweet, for defendant.

COOLEY J.

The question in this case is, whether one who becomes intoxicated in a saloon, upon liquor there sold to him by the keeper, and who while in that condition has his pockets picked, may maintain an action against the keeper to recover the money taken from him? The question arises under act No. 193 of 1877 commonly called the police act, the third section of which provides among other things that "every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband or other person, who shall be injured in person or property or means of support, by any intoxicated person, or by reason of the intoxication of any person, or by reason of the selling, giving or furnishing any spirituous, intoxicating fermented or malt liquors to any person, shall have a right of action in his or her own name against any person or persons who shall, by selling or giving any intoxicating or malt liquor, have caused or contributed to the intoxication of such person or persons, or who have caused or contributed to such injury."

The question is one of the construction of the statute. Is the person to whom the liquor is sold, etc., and who in consequence sustains an injury, one of the persons for whose benefit the statute is passed? The circuit court was of opinion that he is. So far as the statute attempts any enumeration of persons who may sue, they all stand in some one of the domestic relations to the person to whom the liquor is sold, given or furnished. To that extent the statute unquestionably contemplates that there shall be three persons concerned: the person selling, giving or furnishing, the person receiving and causing an injury, and the person injured. But there might be other cases equally meritorious with these, (see English v. Beard, 51 Ind. 489; Bodge v. Hughes, 53 N.H. 614;) and therefore after enumerating wife, child, parent, guardian and husband, the statute extends the right of action to other persons injured.

Does it intend among the other persons who may sue to include the person himself whose intoxication causes or is the occasion or reason of the injury? Doubtless the statute might...