Johnson v. I.B.E.W. Local 558 Properties, Inc.
| Decision Date | 27 August 1982 |
| Citation | 418 So.2d 885 |
| Parties | David A. JOHNSON v. I.B.E.W. LOCAL 558 PROPERTIES, INC., et al. 81-181. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Keith M. Collier, Florence, for appellant.
Robert L. Potts and Bruce J. McKee of Potts, Young & Blasingame, Florence, for appellees.
David Johnson appeals from a summary judgment dismissing his action against I.B.E.W. Local 558 Properties, Inc., and I.B.E.W. Local 558. We affirm.
On 6 June 1980 an automobile being operated by Johnson collided with one being operated by Eugene Quillen in the City of Muscle Shoals, Alabama. At that time, Quillen was returning home after voting in an I.B.E.W. Local 558 election at the local union hall. Several hundred of the members participated in the election and many of them, including Quillen, stayed after the balloting closed in order to learn the results of the election.
According to Quillen's deposition, he brought four cans of beer with him from his home to the union hall and consumed them while on union property. No alcoholic beverages were furnished at the union hall and Quillen stated that he did not observe anyone else drinking alcoholic beverages while he was there.
Affidavits of several other members of the local union, and its officers, show that no one noticed Quillen or anyone else drinking alcoholic beverages on union property. Nor did anyone notice whether Quillen appeared intoxicated during the balloting and the tabulation of those ballots. Those affidavits also show that the union bylaws prohibit possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages on union property. However, an affidavit of one Dr. Gamble stated that he drove by the union hall that date and observed many people drinking beer outside the hall.
Johnson filed his action against Quillen seeking damages for the negligent operation of the automobile. Subsequently, he amended his complaint to include, as defendants, I.B.E.W. Local 558 Properties, Inc., and I.B.E.W. Local 558, a corporation and such persons acting as directors and officers or those seeking election to become directors or officers of the union. The amended complaint was based upon two theories. First, that both the I.B.E.W. Local and its properties corporation allowed alcoholic beverages to be distributed or consumed on their premises and in doing so caused Quillen to become intoxicated which subsequently caused him to operate his automobile to collide with that of Johnson, resulting in injuries to the latter. Second, that the I.B.E.W. Local and its properties corporation violated provisions of the Code of Alabama and local ordinances by allowing alcoholic beverages to be consumed on their premises.
Johnson and Quillen made a pro tanto settlement in connection with which the claim against Quillen was dismissed with prejudice.
The union entities filed a motion for summary judgment on the grounds that no genuine issue as to any material facts existed and they were, therefore, entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The motion was submitted upon Quillen's deposition and the affidavits, together with the "files and records in this proceeding." The trial court entered judgment on the motion in favor of the union entities. Johnson then perfected this appeal.
Although not even suggested in his complaint, Johnson's claims are obviously based upon negligence for the violation of §§ 28-4-70 and 28-4-90, Code 1975 (misdemeanors), pertaining to alcoholic beverages and unlawful drinking places.
It is undisputed that Quillen consumed alcoholic beverages while on union property. However, there was no evidence to support Johnson's contention that the union entities in anywise furnished, sold, or encouraged the consumption of any alcoholic or intoxicating beverages on their property.
In Fox v. Bartholf, 374 So.2d 294 (Ala. 1979), this court established four basic requirements supporting a cause of action based upon statutory violation. Those are:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Otis Engineering Corp. v. Clark
...legislation. No doubt, the trend is to the contrary of that espoused in the majority opinion. See, e.g., Johnson v. I.B.E.W. Local 588 Properties, 418 So.2d 885 (Ala.1982); Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355, 436 A.2d 1 (1980); Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (Del.1981); Barber v. Jensen, 428 S......
-
Edwards v. United States
...by the statute;" and (4) "the statutory violation proximately caused the injury." Id. at 295-96. See also Johnson v. I.B.E.W. Local 558, 418 So.2d 885, 886 (Ala.1982); Note, The Doctrine of Statutory Negligence in Alabama, 27 Ala.L.Rev. 155 (1975). This court will now apply this test to the......
-
Treadwell Ford, Inc. v. Campbell
...vehicles. and that the violation proximately caused the injury. Fox v. Bartholf, 374 So.2d 294 (Ala.1979); Johnson v. I.B.E.W. Local 558 Properties, Inc., 418 So.2d 885 (Ala.1982); Murray v. Alabama Power Co., 413 So.2d 1109 Hamilton's executors, Evans, and Treadwell advance the argument th......