Harris v. Gower, Inc.

Decision Date19 March 1987
Docket NumberNo. 5-86-0019,5-86-0019
Citation153 Ill.App.3d 1035,506 N.E.2d 624
Parties, 106 Ill.Dec. 824 Dorothy HARRIS, Special Administrator of the Estate of Royce Wayne Harris; and Dorothy Harris, Individually, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOWER, INC., a corporation, d/b/a The Barbary Coast Tavern, Joann Gower, Terry Watson, and Eloise Mae McAnelly, Defendants-Appellees.
CourtUnited States Appellate Court of Illinois

Paul Thomas Austin, Marion, for plaintiff-appellant.

Richard A. Green, Michael F. Dahlen, Feirich, Schoen, Mager, Green, Carbondale, for Gower, Inc. d/b/a The Barbary Coast Tavern and Joann Gower.

Justice WELCH delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff, Dorothy Harris, on her own behalf and as special administrator of the estate of her deceased husband, Royce Wayne Harris, appeals from a judgment of the circuit court of Williamson County granting defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. We reverse and remand.

Plaintiff's amended complaint is based upon common law negligence and is brought against Gower, Inc., a corporation d/b/a the Barbary Coast Tavern, and Joann Gower, Terry Watson and Eloise May McAnelly as agents and employees of the defendant tavern. Plaintiff's complaint alleges that on December 16, 1981, decedent was a customer at the Barbary Coast Tavern. Decedent consumed liquor and became intoxicated and unconscious. While intoxicated and unconscious, decedent was removed from the tavern by Gower, Watson and McAnelly and placed into a car in the tavern's parking lot. Plaintiff's complaint further alleged that defendants knew or should have known that their conduct was likely to cause injury or death and that as a result of defendants' negligent conduct, decedent froze to death. Defendants Gower, Inc. and Joann Gower filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the grounds that the Dram Shop Act is the exclusive remedy against owners and operators of taverns for injuries to person, property or means of support by an intoxicated person or in consequence of intoxication. (Ill.Rev.Stat.1983, ch. 43, par. 135.) The trial court granted defendants' motion.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the Dram Shop Act is not the only remedy available to her because her complaint is based upon defendants' negligent conduct toward decedent after he became intoxicated and unconscious rather than upon defendants' negligence in supplying decedent with liquor. It is well established that the Dram Shop Act is the exclusive remedy against tavern owners and operators for injuries caused by an intoxicated person or in consequence of intoxication. Consequently, there is no common law liability for the negligent sale or supply of liquor. Wimmer v. Koenigseder (1985), 108 Ill.2d 435, 92 Ill.Dec. 233, 484 N.E.2d 1088.

Plaintiff relies upon Lessner v. Hurtt (2nd Dist.1977), 55 Ill.App.3d 195, 13 Ill.Dec. 430, 371 N.E.2d 125 for its argument. In Lessner, plaintiff was injured in a fight with defendant Hurtt in defendant Ramada Inn's cocktail lounge. (55 Ill.App.3d 195, 196, 13 Ill.Dec. 430, 371 N.E.2d 125.) Plaintiff's amended complaint alleged that "Ramada was negligent in that it, through its employees, knew that Hurtt was intoxicated, knew that he threatened plaintiff with physical harm, did not remove Hurtt when plaintiff was endangered and refused to aid plaintiff * * * when the threat of physical harm became imminent." (55 Ill.App.3d 195, 196, 13 Ill.Dec. 430, 317 N.E.2d 125.) The trial court granted Ramada's motion for summary judgment on the basis that the Dram Shop Act was the exclusive remedy available to plaintiff. (55 Ill.App.3d 195, 196, 13 Ill.Dec. 430, 431, 371 N.E.2d 125, 126.) In reversing the trial court's judgment, this court stated that plaintiff's "complaint does not charge negligence by reason of the sale or supply of liquor, but rather is grounded on Ramada's failure to prevent injury to plaintiff by a boisterous and dangerous customer on defendant's premises." (55 Ill.App.3d 195, 197, 13 Ill.Dec. 430, 431, 371 N.E.2d 125, 126.) The court reasoned that "regardless of whether a person obtains * * * liquor at a dram shop, the owner or operator of such a business may be negligent and consequently be liable by failing to protect its patrons from physical harm by a person on the premises." (55 Ill.App.3d 195, 197, 13 Ill.Dec. 430, 431, 371 N.E.2d 125, 126.) The court held that the duty of a tavern owner or operator is to see that his guests are free from annoyance or injury much as any possessor of land must act reasonably in avoiding harm to invitees from the negligence of third persons. (55 Ill.App.3d 195, 197, 13 Ill.Dec. 430, 431, 371 N.E.2d 125, 126.) Thus, the Dram Shop Act is not the exclusive remedy.

Although plaintiff's complaint in this case alleged that decedent purchased intoxicating liquor from plaintiff unlike plaintiff's complaint in Lessner, it does not diminish plaintiff's cause of action. The allegation in this complaint regarding the sale of intoxicating liquor to decedent is significant only in reference to how decedent became unconscious. It also established that decedent did not place himself in peril, but rather it was defendants who placed decedent in peril.

Furthermore, when a party brings a cause of action, allegations of fact are necessary for a proper complaint. (Mlade v. Finley (1983), 112 Ill.App.3d 914, 918, 68 Ill.Dec. 387, 390-91, 445 N.E.2d 1240, 1243-44.) The trial court must liberally construe these pleadings in order to achieve justice between the litigants (Mlade v. Finley ) and look to the resolution of litigation on the merits and the avoidance of elevating questions of form over questions of substance. Zeh v. Wheeler (1986), 111 Ill.2d 266, 278, 95 Ill.Dec. 478, 484, 489 N.E.2d 1342, 1348.

In this case, the trial court elevated form over substance. Plaintiffs properly alleged all pertinent facts which resulted in decedent's death.

Although plaintiff alleged in the complaint that defendants sold and supplied intoxicating liquor to the decedent causing decedent to become unconscious, it is not the act that allegedly resulted in decedent's death. Whether or not decedent had been drunk, his drunkenness did not lessen the tavern owner's duty to protect his patrons from other customers, his employees or the owner himself. Plaintiff properly predicated her complaint on the fact that defendants' placing of the unconscious decedent in his truck on a very cold winter night is ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
16 cases
  • Simmons v. John D. Homatas (on Stage Prod.S Inc
    • United States
    • Illinois Supreme Court
    • March 18, 2010
    ...lounge owner still owed a duty to protect its patrons while on the premises. Lessner was subsequently cited in Harris v. Gower, Inc., 153 Ill.App.3d 1035, 1037, 106 Ill.Dec. 824, 506 N.E.2d 624 (1987). In Harris, a bar patron became intoxicated, and subsequently became unconscious, after be......
  • Reynolds v. Cb Sports Bar Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit
    • October 22, 2010
    ...for acts that are independent of serving alcohol. Simmons, 338 Ill.Dec. 883, 925 N.E.2d at 1097-98; Harris v. Gower, Inc., 153 Ill.App.3d 1035, 106 Ill.Dec. 824, 506 N.E.2d 624, 626 (1987). Therefore, although CB Sports's liability here cannot be premised on its having served Reynolds (or a......
  • Groh v. Westin Operator, LLC
    • United States
    • Colorado Court of Appeals
    • March 28, 2013
    ...exercise reasonable care in ejecting Randall Hoff from the Elkhorn Bar in the midst of winter.” Similarly, in Harris v. Gower, Inc. , 153 Ill.App.3d 1035, 106 Ill.Dec. 824, 506 N.E.2d 624, 626 (1987), the court recognized that “Plaintiff properly predicated her complaint on the fact that de......
  • Hicks v. Korean Airlines Co., 1-09-0542.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • September 29, 2010
    ...of alcohol to a patron, but on the actions of the tavern after the patron became intoxicated, including Harris v. Gower, Inc., 153 Ill.App.3d 1035, 1037-38, 106 Ill.Dec. 824, 506 N.E.2d 624, 624-25 (1987), where bar employees placed an intoxicated, unconscious patron in his car in which the......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT