Hahn v. City of Ortonville

• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: MATSON; DELL
• Citation: Hahn v. City of Ortonville, 238 Minn. 428, 57 N.W.2d 254 (Minn. 1953)
• Decision Date: 20 February 1953
• Docket Number: No. 35833,35833
• Parties: HAHN v. CITY OF ORTONVILLE.

Page 254

57 N.W.2d 254

238 Minn. 428

HAHN v. CITY OF ORTONVILLE.

No. 35833.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Feb. 20, 1953.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. As far as the infliction of physical injuries upon a third party is concerned a person may be deemed intoxicated within the meaning of M.S.A. § 340.95 when his excessive use of intoxicants has produced such a material change in his normal mental status that his behavior becomes unpredictable and uncontrolled and, as a result, slight irritations, real or imaginary, cause outbursts of anger which find expression in acts of physical violence against another.

2. In order to establish liability for an illegal sale under the civil damage act, § 340.95, the liquor sold need not be the sole cause of intoxication but it is enough if it is a co-operating, concurring, or proximately contributing cause.

3. When a statute is not explicit but requires construction, a stricter interpretation is required to establish a legislative intent to fix a liability in derogation of a sovereign immunity than where the liability is imposed only with respect to a proprietary act.

4. An enterprise is proprietary when it is profit making in the sense that when conducted by private persons it is operated for profit.

5. The operation of a municipal liquor store involves an exercise of both governmental and proprietary powers.

6. Civil damage acts, although penal in nature, are also remedial in character and, according to the prevailing view, are to be liberally construed So as to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

7. When legislative acts involve a single subject or problem, there is an unusually strong reason for applying the rule of statutory construction that when statutes are In pari materia they are to be construed harmoniously together.

8. The civil damage act § 340.95, applies to municipal corporations operating municipal liquor stores.

9. A municipality is liable for the torts of its servants acting within the general scope of its corporate powers although their acts are unauthorized in the particular case.

10. Notice to a municipality under § 465.09 is required only when an action is predicated upon negligence.

E. V. Cliff, Ortonville, for appellant.

Streissguth, Berens & Rodenberg, New Ulm, for respondent.

MATSON, Justice.

Defendant, the city of Ortonville, appeals from an order denying its alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial.

We are primarily concerned with the question of whether the civil damage act, M.S.A. § 340.95, which imposes a liability in favor of a third party injured by the intoxication of a purchaser of liquor, applies to a municipality operating a municipal liquor store. The action which gives rise to this question and certain other related issues was brought by the plaintiff against the city of Ortonville for injuries sustained in an assault committed upon him by Robert Van Hout, a minor, who had obtained liquor in defendant's store. Subordinate issues also arise as to whether the evidence sustains findings (1) that there was an illegal sale, (2) that the purchaser became intoxicated, (3) that the illegal sale caused or contributed to the intoxication, and (4) that plaintiff was injured by the purchaser. ¹

Taking as we must the view of the evidence most favorable to the verdict it appears that Van Hout and three or four of his friends on the evening of November 20, 1947, spent the hour between eight and nine o'clock in defendant's municipal liquor store. While there, they each consumed five or six drinks of whiskey. Van Hout testified that while standing at the bar he personally bought and paid for whiskey which was served by one of the bartenders. Both bartenders on duty that night denied having sold any liquor to Van Hout, and one of them said that the assistant manager, now deceased, had instructed him not to sell Van Hout any liquor because he was a minor. None of the witnesses could recall or identify the bartender or bartenders who served them. The credibility of the various witnesses was, however, for the jury, and it could therefore accept Van Hout's testimony as true. It follows that the evidence sustains the verdict upon the issue of whether an illegal sale was made to a minor.

1. Was Van Hout intoxicated? At about nine o'clock he and his friends left the Ortonville liquor store and went over to Big Stone City, South Dakota, where they purchased a fifth of whiskey. They then returned to Ortonville where, with the exception of a couple of drinks given to others, they consumed the whiskey in a cafe. A little later they sent over to Big Stone City for another pint of whiskey which was also partly consumed in the same cafe. At about twelve o'clock midnight the group left the cafe and went to a dancein the Ortonville armory. Shortly after arriving at the dance Van Hout and two of his companions, Dick Toner and Keith Karow, went to the men's lavatory located in the basement of the armory. Here the remainder of the unfinished pint of whiskey was consumed. Karow estimated that upon finishing the pint of whiskey he had had about 15 drinks. While drinking the whiskey one of the members of the group suggested that they return to Big Stone City, but one of his companions objected because in his opinion Big Stone City was no good. This remark led to an argument with Luane Welde and Henry Reddies, two young men from Big Stone City who were also in the lavatory, over the relative merits of the cities of Big Stone and Ortonville. Toner struck Welde, and a fight resulted between these two men. When Reddies made a move toward the fight Van Hout struck him, and a fight started between Van Hout and Reddies. In the meantime plaintiff entered the lavatory and attempted to interfere in the fight by grabbing Van Hout's shoulder. Van Hout then hit plaintiff a blow which felled him to the floor where he apparently struck his head and became unconscious. Karow and Welde both testified that Van Hout, who ordinarily was of a friendly nature, was quarrelsome and not like himself when he struck plaintiff. Karow also testified that he 'could tell Van Hout had been drinking at that time, but he was not nearly as bad as later on.' He stated further that Van Hout was 'under the influence' when at the dance. This evidence and the possible inferences to be drawn from it and the surrounding circumstances sustain a jury finding that Van Hout was intoxicated when he struck plaintiff. The jury could also reasonably infer that the belligerency of the parties and their fistic combat over the relative merits of Ortonville and Big Stone City were not solely the result of a spirit of community pride. Intoxication within the meaning of § 340.95 may be manifested in a variety of ways according to the peculiar circumstances of the individual case. ² As far as the infliction of physical injuries upon a third party is concerned, a person may be deemed intoxicated within the meaning of § 340.95 when his excessive use of intoxicants has produced such a material change in his normal mental status that his behavior becomes unpredictable and uncontrolled and, as a result, slight irritations, real or imaginary, cause outbursts of anger which find expression in acts of physical violence against another. ³

2. Was the intoxicating liquor procured in defendant's liquor store between eight and nine o'clock in the evening a proximate cause of Van Hout's intoxication? Between the time of his departure from the municipal liquor store and the time of the fight, Van Hout had consumed a considerable amount of whiskey obtained elsewhere. Clearly the evidence sustains the verdict on this issue. In order to establish liability for an illegal sale under the civil damage act, § 340.95, the liquor sold need not be the sole cause of intoxication but it is enough if it is a co- operating, concurring, or proximately contributing cause. ⁴

The evidence also sustains a finding that plaintiff was seriously injured by Van Hout's blow. He fell to the floor unconscious, and in that condition he was later taken to his home. On the two succeeding mornings he was examined by a physician. On the second morning he was taken to a hospital where he remained in an unconscious or confused state for approximately 11 days following the time of injury. While in the hospital it was necessary to use some restraints on him because of restlessness and he also experienced some bowel and bladder trouble. Plaintiff resumed his regular employment late in February 1948, which was about two months after his release from the hospital. He has suffered no industrial handicap. Examinations and X-rays disclose the loss of one tooth from a bridge, bruises on the face, and a skull fracture followed by a brain concussion. X-rays taken about four years after the injury was incurred show that the skull fracture is entirely healed, but at the time of the trial plaintiff complained of headaches, dizziness, and weakness. His attending physician testified that these complaints and injuries were consistent with his previous findings and that in his opinion they were caused by the injuries incurred at the time of the fight. There were no objective symptoms to support plaintiff's statements that at the time of trial he was suffering from headaches and dizziness but the physician was of the opinion that mild post-traumatic headaches and dizziness could follow a concussion such as plaintiff received. Plaintiff sustained a loss in wages of $720 and incurred hospital and medical bills of $491.40. The jury awarded $4,800 for damages. The evidence sustains the verdict not only as to the cause of plaintiff's injuries but also as to the amount of damages awarded.

3. We come to the fundamental question of whether the civil damage act applies to a city or village operating a municipal liquor store. Defendant takes the position that it is immune from liability on the theory that the operation of a municipal...