Griffin v. Sebek
Decision Date | 15 September 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 11623,11623 |
Citation | 245 N.W.2d 481,90 S.D. 692 |
Parties | Robert James GRIFFIN and Raymond Griffin, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Roland SEBEK and Mary Ann Sebek, Individually and doing business as Sebek's Tavern, Defendants and Respondents. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Richardson, Groseclose, Kornmann & Wyly, Aberdeen, Conmy, Feste & Bossart, Ltd., Fargo, N.D., for plaintiffs and appellants.
Holland & Brantseg, Sisseton, for defendants and respondents.
Appellants, the son and his father, respectively, commenced this action for damages based upon the theory of negligence of respondents, as a licensed on-sale and off-sale dealer in alcoholic beverages, in an alleged unlawful sale of intoxicants.
The trial court granted respondents' motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to SDCL 15--6--12(b) (5). The appeal is from that order which determined the action on its merits. SDCL 15--26--1(2), 15--26--1(4). We affirm.
The facts of the case are reflected only in the complaint and the briefs of the parties as no responsive pleading was made or filed and no matters outside the pleading were presented to the court to require the motion to be treated as a motion for summary judgment. RCP 12(b), RCP 56.
Appellants allege that respondents, as licensed dealers, violated laws of both South Dakota and North Dakota by selling alcoholic beverages on a Sunday, April 30, 1972, throughout the early morning hours to seventeen-year-old Robert James Griffin and his companion, eighteen-year-old David L. Hager, and that respondents continued to sell intoxicants to the latter after he became intoxicated, contrary to SDCL 35--4--78. It is further claimed that respondents sold intoxicants contrary to the provisions of SDCL 35--4--81.1, i.e., Sunday sales. In their brief appellants seem to acknowledge that the alcoholic beverage sold was low-point beer, which is governed by SDCL 35--6. Low-point beer is generally excluded from the provisions of SDCL 35--4 by SDCL 35--4--1 except as provided in SDCL 35--6--27. Assuming that it might be established that respondents violated the provisions of SDCL 35--6--27 or some other statute, the question presented by appellants' brief is whether in the absence of a Civil Damage Act, otherwise referred to as a 'Dram Shop Act,' the common law now authorizes or should be liberalized to afford a remedy. In this instance, the remedy we are asked to provide would authorize recovery against a licensee to both a person who was sold an alcoholic beverage and is injured in a motor vehicle accident in North Dakota, alleged to have been caused by an intoxicated driver to whom respondents also supplied an alcoholic beverage, and to the father of a minor so injured and who incurred substantial medical expense for his son's care.
After a thorough review of the legislative history of civil damage acts and dramshop acts in this state, as well as the numerous decisions of this court construing those acts, we decline the invitation to so legislate. This court, early in its history, stated 'That the creation of rights and remedies in these civil damage acts is a proper exercise of legislative power has been so long settled that no citation of authorities is necessary.' Kennedy v. Garrigan, 1909, 23 S.D. 265, 121 N.W. 783.
Appellants acknowledge the general rule that:
48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 430. See also 75 A.L.R.2d 835.
Appellants claim, however, that the modern and more liberal view expressed by the New Jersey court in Rappaport v. Nichols, 1959, 31 N.J. 188, 156 A.2d 1, 75 A.L.R.2d 821, which, absent a dramshop act, permitted cases such as the one at bar to go the jury on common law negligence, should be adopted by this court. Granted that Rappaport v. Nichols, supra, has been quoted with favor and indeed followed in several jurisdictions, see Waynick v. Chicago's Last Department Store, 1959, 7 Cir., 269 F.2d 322, 77 A.L.R.2d 1260; Berkeley v. Park, 1965, 47 Misc.2d 381, 262 N.Y.S.2d 290; Elder v. Fisher, 1966, 247 Ind. 598, 217 N.E.2d 847; Adamian v. Three Sons, Inc., 1968, 353 Mass. 498, 233 N.E.2d 18, it is observed that the New Jersey court recognized that the legislative activity of that state in the area was limited. As stated by that court, Rappaport v. Nichols, supra.
Had our legislature failed to consider the evil to be remedied for a like period of time some justification might be found for this court's embarking on such a course. However, the statutory history in this state does not reflect callousness or lack of legislative concern or action.
During the two periods in this state's history in which we experienced prohibition, that is from the years 1890 to 1896 and again from 1917 to 1935, as evidenced by the historical note following S.D.Const. Art. XXIV, the right of action against illicit sellers of intoxicating liquor was granted to various classes of persons under varying degrees of proof and during each period both actual and exemplary damages could be recovered. 1
Following the repeal of the then provisions of Article XXIV of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, by a vote of the people in November 1896 pursuant to the Laws of 1895, Ch. 38, the legislature carried forward similar provisions imposing liability upon licensed dealers and also authorized an action on the bond of the licensee.
When liquor was again legalized the legislature, by the Laws of 1897, Ch. 72, § 6 as amended by the Laws of 1901, Ch. 141, § 3 and codified as R.Pol.C.1903, § 2839, required the execution of a bond by a licensee in the sum of $2,000 and further provided, in part, that
'in all actions brought upon said bond for damages by reason of the violation of any of the provisions thereof, the plaintiff in such action shall, in the event of recovering a judgment of any amount, also recover his costs of suit.'
The foregoing provision related back to a covenant required to be in the bond, the recital being as follows:
In addition to the foregoing provision the procedure was established and the parties to whom the right of a cause of action enured were spelled out in the Laws of 1897, Ch. 72, § 16, as codified in R.Pol.C.1903, § 2849 as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Baatz v. Arrow Bar, 15875
...cannot constitutionally, by statute, abrogate a cause of action recognized by the state Supreme Court. History In Griffin v. Sebek, 90 S.D. 692, 245 N.W.2d 481 (1976), 2 we refused to recognize a common law cause of action against persons selling or furnishing liquor by persons injured as a......
-
Alegria v. Payonk
...Keaton v. Kroger Co., supra ; Holmes v. Circo, supra ; Marchiondo v. Roper, 90 N.M. 367, 563 P.2d 1160 (N.M.1977); Ceriffin v. Sebek, 245 N.W.2d 481 (S.D.1976); Olsen v. Copeland, 90 Wis.2d 483, 280 N.W.2d 178 The recent case of Holmes v. Circo, 196 Neb. 496, 244 N.W.2d 65 (1976), is illust......
-
Olsen v. Copeland, 77-626
...Keaton v. Kroger Co., 143 Ga.App. 23, 237 S.E.2d 443 (1977); Edgar v. Kajet, 84 Misc.2d 100, 375 N.Y.S.2d 548 (1975); Griffin v. Sebek, 245 N.W.2d 481 (S.D.1976); Parsons v. Jow, 480 P.2d 396 (Wyo.1971). Of the states recognizing a common-law cause of action, some, such as Illinois and Minn......
-
Wegleitner v. Sattler
...cause of the injury is the act of the purchaser in drinking the liquor and not the act of the vendor in selling it. 90 S.D. 692, 695, 245 N.W.2d 481, 483 (1976) (quoting 48A C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 428 (1981) (emphasis added)), overruled on other grounds by Walz v. City of Hudson, 327......