Gardner v. Dat

• Decision Date: 12 December 1901
• Citation: 95 Me. 558,50 A. 892
• Parties: GARDNER v. DAT.
• Court: Maine Supreme Court

50 A. 892

95 Me. 558

GARDNER

v. DAT.

Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.

Dec. 12, 1901.

(Official.)

Report from supreme judicial court, Washington county.

Action by Mabel D. Gardner against Arlington Day to recover damages for injury to plaintiff's means of support by reason of the intoxication of her husband, resulting in his death, caused by the sale of liquor. Case reported, and action to stand for trial.

Argued before WISWELL, C. J., and STROUT, SAVAGE, FOGLER, POWERS, and PEABODY, JJ.

W. R. Pattangall and J. W. Leathers, for plaintiff.

E. C. Ryder and C. B. Donworth, for defendant.

WISWELL, C. J. This action comes to the law court upon a report of the pleadings, in which the parties submit the question as to whether or not the facts set out in the plaintiff's declaration constitute a cause of action.

The action is to recover damages, under Rev. St. c. 27, § 49, for injury to the plaintiff's means of support by reason of the intoxication of her husband, resulting in his death, caused by the defendant by giving or selling to him intoxicating liquors. The statute referred to, so far as involved in the decision of the case, is as follows: "Every wife, child, parent, guardian, husband, or other person who is injured in person, property, means of support or otherwise, by any intoxicated person, or by reason of the intoxication of any person, has a right of action in his own name against any one who by selling or giving any intoxicating liquors, or otherwise, has caused or contributed to the intoxication of such person."

The plaintiff alleges in her declaration that on the 18th day of March, 1900, she was, and for a long time prior thereto had been, the wife of one Horace T. Gardner; that he was her sole means of support, and that from the time of their marriage up to that date he had supported her; that upon that day the defendant at a place named, gave or sold to her husband a certain quantity of intoxicating liquor; that the husband drank this quantity of intoxicating liquor given or sold to him by the defendant, and that thereby he became intoxicated; and that because of such intoxication, and because of having drank this liquor, he died upon March 19, 1900, by reason whereof the plaintiff was deprived of her only means of support

The question presented is whether or not the plaintiff's means of support were injured, within the meaning of this statute, by her husband's death, resulting from his intoxication caused by liquor sold or given him by the defendant; the husband having always supported the wife during their married life, and having been her sole means of support.

This question has never been decided in this state, so that it becomes our duty to construe the statute, and to ascertain its true intent and meaning in this respect. While such a statute, which gives a remedy unknown to the common law, should not be enlarged, it should, of course, be so construed, where the language is clear and explicit, as to give it its true meaning, having in view the purpose of the statute.

It is evident that the statute not only gives a remedy when one is injured in his person or property by an intoxicated person, but also when a person is injured in his or her means of support "by reason of the intoxication of any person." The most obvious and common injury of this latter character is where a wife or child is dependent upon the husband or father for support, and by reason of the intoxication of the husband or father he is rendered wholly or partially incapable to furnish such support. It is unquestioned that in such case an action will lie if the total or partial incapacity to provide support is only temporary, or even if it is lasting, caused by some permanent disability sustained while in a state of intoxication, so long as the husband continues to live; but it is claimed that this injury to the wife's means of support does not continue after the death of the husband. In other words, the contention is (and it is supported by a number of decisions of courts of high authority, under substantially similar statutes) that while a wife's means of support may be injured, within the meaning of the statute, by reason of the temporary or permanent disability of the husband by reason of his intoxication, and consequent incapacity or diminished capacity to provide support, she cannot be injured in this respect by his death...