Christiansen v. Campbell, 0424
| Court | Court of Appeals of South Carolina |
| Writing for the Court | GOOLSBY |
| Citation | 328 S.E.2d 351,285 S.C. 164 |
| Parties | Douglas CHRISTIANSEN, Respondent, v. James CAMPBELL and Rosaleen K. Forcier, d/b/a Rosie's Hideaway, of whom Rosaleen K. Forcier is Appellant. Appeal of Rosaleen K. FORCIER. . Heard |
| Docket Number | No. 0424,0424 |
| Decision Date | 21 November 1984 |
Page 351
v.
James CAMPBELL and Rosaleen K. Forcier, d/b/a Rosie's Hideaway,
of whom Rosaleen K. Forcier is Appellant.
Appeal of Rosaleen K. FORCIER.
Decided March 21, 1985.
[285 S.C. 165]
Page 353
Allen R. Dupree, North Charleston, for appellant.E. Jeannette Heyward and Leonard L. Long of Long, Smith & Jordan, Charleston, for respondent.
GOOLSBY, Judge:
Douglas Christiansen, a patron of Rosaleen K. Forcier's bar, brought this action against Forcier and another to recover damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a motor vehicle after leaving Forcier's bar in an intoxicated condition. Forcier appeals from a circuit court order overruling[285 S.C. 166] her demurrer to Christiansen's complaint. We affirm.
The issues on appeal concern whether the complaint improperly joins two causes of action and whether the facts as pleaded are sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Forcier.
The facts alleged in the complaint are as follows. On November 15, 1980, at approximately 3:00 p.m., Christiansen entered Rosie's Hideaway, a bar operated by Forcier on Rivers Avenue in Charleston County. Christiansen consumed a number of beers sold to him by Forcier and became visibly intoxicated. Even so, Forcier continued to sell him beer. At approximately 5:45 p.m., Christiansen left the bar and attempted to cross Rivers Avenue. When he stepped from the curb, he was struck and seriously injured by a motor vehicle driven by the non-appealing co-defendant James Campbell.
The complaint alleges Christiansen's injuries were the direct and proximate result of the joint and concurrent negligence, carelessness, recklessness, willfulness, and wantonness of Campbell in the operation of his motor vehicle and of Forcier, among other things, in her sale of beer to Christiansen in violation of Section 61-9-410 of the South Carolina Code of Laws (1976).
I.
Forcier first contends the complaint misjoins two causes of action in that the complaint joins a cause of action arising out of Forcier's operation of her business with a cause of action arising out of Campbell's operation of his motor vehicle. We disagree.
As we read the complaint, Christiansen does not allege two causes of action. He alleges one cause of action that arises out of a joint tort. In South Carolina, one injured by the wrongful act of two or more joint tort-feasors may elect either to sue each tort-feasor separately or to join them as parties defendant in a single action. Johns v. Castles, 229 S.C. 51, 91 S.E.2d 721 (1956); Simon v. Strock, 209 S.C. 134, 39 S.E.2d 209 (1946). Here, Christiansen simply chose to proceed against both alleged tort-feasors in one action.
II.
Forcier also contends Christiansen's complaint fails to [285 S.C. 167] state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Again, we disagree.
When a party demurs to another party's pleadings upon the ground the pleadings fail to state a cause of action, the pleadings must be liberally construed in favor of the pleader and sustained if the facts and reasonable inferences to be drawn from the pleadings entitle the pleader to relief on any theory of the case. Todd v. S.C. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co., 276 S.C. 284, 278 S.E.2d 607 (1981). Viewed in this light, it is apparent
Page 354
to us that Christiansen's complaint alleges a cause of action.As we mentioned, the complaint alleges that Christiansen's injuries were a proximate result of Forcier's sale of beer to Christiansen in violation of Section 61-9-410 of the Code. This statute reads in part:
No holder of a permit authorizing the sale of beer ... shall knowingly do any of the following acts upon the licensed premises covered by such holder's permit:
* * *
(2) Sell beer ... to any person while such person is in an intoxicated condition;
....
A violation of any of the foregoing provisions shall be a ground for the revocation or suspension of such holder's permit. 1
Forcier argues Section 61-9-410, which is a penal statute, provides no basis for civil liability when violated. She also argues Christiansen's consumption of beer and not its sale was the proximate cause of his alleged injuries as a matter of law. We reject both arguments.
A violation of a penal statute can result in civil liability. 1 Am.Jur.2d Actions Section 57 at 589 (1962). In determining whether civil liability arises from a violation of a penal statute, we look to see whether the statute is one designed to promote public safety, the complaining party is a member of the class the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rong Yao Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Rest., No. 86-809.
...191, 305 S.E. 2d 734 (1983); Davis v. Billy's Con-Teena, Inc., 284 Or. 351, 587 P.2d 75, 76-78 (1978) (in banc); Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E. 2d 351, 354 (Ct.App. 1985); Walz v. City of Hudson, 327 N.W.2d 120, 122-23 (S.D. 1982); Mitchell v. Ketner, 54 Tenn.App. 656, 393......
-
Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., No. 2555
...those jurisdictions that have recognized a civil cause of action based upon the violation of a penal statute. Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E.2d 351 (Ct.App.1985), cert. denied, S.C.Sup.Ct. order dated June 27, 1985. 9 Page 453 In Christiansen, as here, the plaintiff, who wa......
-
El Chico Corp. v. Poole, Nos. C-5639
...Darby Lodge No. 1973, Inc., 413 Pa. 626, 198 A.2d 550 (1964); Walz v. City of Hudson, 327 N.W.2d 120 (S.D.1982); Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E.2d 351 (App.1985) (licensee owes duty to intoxicated patron); Mitchell v. Ketner, 54 Tenn.App. 656, 393 S.W.2d 755 (1964); Young v......
-
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Todd, No. 72490
...Jevning v. Skyline Bar, 223 Mont. 422, 726 P.2d 326 (1986); Klingerman v. SOL Corp., 505 A.2d 474 (Me.1986); Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E.2d 351 1 Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., Okl., 725 P.2d 300 [1986]. 2 The class of consumer described in the federal certifi......
-
Rong Yao Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Rest., No. 86-809.
...191, 305 S.E. 2d 734 (1983); Davis v. Billy's Con-Teena, Inc., 284 Or. 351, 587 P.2d 75, 76-78 (1978) (in banc); Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E. 2d 351, 354 (Ct.App. 1985); Walz v. City of Hudson, 327 N.W.2d 120, 122-23 (S.D. 1982); Mitchell v. Ketner, 54 Tenn.App. 656, 393......
-
Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., No. 2555
...those jurisdictions that have recognized a civil cause of action based upon the violation of a penal statute. Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E.2d 351 (Ct.App.1985), cert. denied, S.C.Sup.Ct. order dated June 27, 1985. 9 Page 453 In Christiansen, as here, the plaintiff, who wa......
-
El Chico Corp. v. Poole, Nos. C-5639
...Darby Lodge No. 1973, Inc., 413 Pa. 626, 198 A.2d 550 (1964); Walz v. City of Hudson, 327 N.W.2d 120 (S.D.1982); Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E.2d 351 (App.1985) (licensee owes duty to intoxicated patron); Mitchell v. Ketner, 54 Tenn.App. 656, 393 S.W.2d 755 (1964); Young v......
-
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Todd, No. 72490
...Jevning v. Skyline Bar, 223 Mont. 422, 726 P.2d 326 (1986); Klingerman v. SOL Corp., 505 A.2d 474 (Me.1986); Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E.2d 351 1 Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., Okl., 725 P.2d 300 [1986]. 2 The class of consumer described in the federal certifi......