DeLoach v. Mayer Elec. Supply Co.
Decision Date | 21 December 1979 |
Parties | Ronald L. DeLOACH v. MAYER ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY et al. 78-703. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Curtis W. Gordon, Jr. and William J. Wynn, III of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, for appellant.
Brittin T. Coleman and Stephen B. Brown of Bradley, Arant, Rose & White, Birmingham, for appellee Mayer Electric Supply Co., Inc.
Thomas B. Huie of Huie, Fernambucq, Stewart & Smith, Birmingham, for appellee Britling Cafeteria Co., Inc.
This appeal is from an order granting both defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that there is no genuine issue of material fact under either negligence or the Dram Shop Act. We affirm.
Defendant Mayer Electric hosted an open house and "New Products Show" on its premises, furnishing soft drinks, mixed drinks, and beer. Defendant Britling catered the show and provided the food, along with soft drinks, bar supplies, and bartenders. Mayer Electric employees had been invited to attend the show, which was held from 5:00 p. m. to 9:00 p. m. Alphonso Wells, a Mayer Electric employee, "clocked in" on his regular job at 7:03 a. m. and "clocked out" at 7:11 p. m. Thereafter, he attended the show and allegedly became intoxicated from the beverages provided. Upon leaving Mayer Electric's premises, he drove his motor vehicle onto the "wrong side" of Interstate 59, striking plaintiff DeLoach, a police officer on a motorcycle, seriously injuring him.
DeLoach contended that since Mayer Electric and Britling are not in the business of selling liquor, beer, or any intoxicating beverages, and since Mayer Electric and Britling provided the beverages, both had violated the Dram Shop Act of Alabama, the violation of which proximately caused DeLoach's injuries. In addition, DeLoach brought a count against Mayer Electric and Britling based upon common law negligence for furnishing the alcoholic beverages to Wells.
Both Mayer Electric and Britling filed motions for summary judgment. The motions were granted.
The precise issues for our review are whether the Dram Shop Act, Code 1975, § 6-5-71(a), applies in the fact situation presented, and whether DeLoach has a cause of action for common law negligence against Mayer Electric and Britling for disbursing alcohol to Wells.
The Dram Shop Act provides:
Code 1975, § 6-5-71(a). DeLoach contends that the act is applicable because the alcohol furnished to Wells was furnished "contrary to the provisions of law," 1 based upon a statutory analysis of §§ 28-3-260(10) and 28-3-1(16) of the 1975 Code, which provide:
DeLoach's contention is that Mayer Electric and Britling are not licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, that they "sold" alcoholic beverages to Wells because there was consideration flowing from Wells to Mayer and Britling in exchange for the beverages, that an unlicensed sale is illegal, and that there is therefore a prohibited act within the meaning of "contrary to the provisions of law" in the Dram Shop Act. DeLoach's claim, then, hinges upon the contention that there was a "sale" to Wells by Mayer Electric and Britling.
It is clear to us, and we so hold, that there was no "sale" to Wells within the meaning of § 28-3-1(16) because there was no consideration present....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark
...considered as the general rule that an employer is not liable under the facts presently before the Court. See also Deloach v. Mayer Elec. Supply Co., 378 So.2d 733 (Ala.1979) (employer not liable); Sanders v. Hercules Sheet Metal, Inc., 385 So.2d 772 (La.1980) (same); and Anslinger v. Marti......
-
Ling v. Jan's Liquors
...vendors in all jurisdictions. 1. ALABAMA Dram shop act (Ala.Code § 6-5-71 [1975]. No common-law vendor liability. DeLoach v. Mayer Elec. Supply Co., 378 So.2d 733 (Ala.1979). 2. ALASKA No statutory vendor liability. Common-law liability. Nazareno v. Urie, 638 P.2d 671 (Alaska 1981); and Mor......
-
Jones v. BP Oil Co., Inc.
...Brewing Co., 560 So.2d 1030 (Ala.1990). See Ward v. Rhodes, Hammonds & Beck, Inc., 511 So.2d 159 (Ala.1987); DeLoach v. Mayer Electric Supply Co., 378 So.2d 733 (Ala.1979). In Parker, we plainly stated: "Plaintiff urges us to adopt a common law cause of action that would impose liability fo......
-
Overbaugh v. McCutcheon
...shop legislation. Casselberry, 533 N.Y.S.2d at 32.5 See Cartwright v. Hyatt Corp., 460 F.Supp. 80 (D.D.C.1978); DeLoach v. Mayer Electric Supply Co., 378 So.2d 733 (Ala.1979); Keckonen v. Robles, 146 Ariz. 268, 705 P.2d 945 (1985); Carr v. Turner, 238 Ark. 889, 385 S.W.2d 656 (1965); Kowal ......