Kangas v. Suchorski

Decision Date05 March 1964
Docket NumberNo. 132,132
PartiesAlfred KANGAS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Alexander SUCHORSKI, doing business as 400 Bar, and Ohio Casualty Insurance Company, a foreign insurance corporation, Defendants and Appellees, John Exelby, jointly and severally, Defendant.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Donald Wm. Sargent, and Leonard L. Lubnik, Detroit, for plaintiff and appellant.

Alexander, Buchanan & Conklin, Detroit, for defendants-appellees Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. and Alexander Suchorski, d/b/a 400 Bar; Floyd Westcott, Detroit, of counsel.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Justice.

This is a suit commenced in the common pleas court for the city of Detroit, under the so-called dramshop act (C.L.1948, § 436.22, as amended by P.A.1958, No. 152 [Stat.Ann. 1959 Cum.Supp. § 18.993]), for damages resulting from an assault committed by defendant Exelby while he was intoxicated, defendant Suchorski, a retailer of liquor, allegedly having sold him liquor prior to the assault but during that state of intoxication. Defendant insurance company is the statutory surety on defendant Suchorski's bond. The trial court entered judgment of $3,000 for plaintiff against defendant Exelby, from which no appeal has been taken. At the same time, judgment of no cause for action was entered in favor of defendants Suchorski and the insurance company. Plaintiff's motion for new trial was denied. Plaintiff took an appeal to circuit court which affirmed the trial court. Upon rehearing denied there, plaintiff has appealed to this Court.

The testimony shows that plaintiff and defendant Exelby drank together in defendant Suchorski's bar. After Exelby had become intoxicated Suchorski served him further intoxicants. Plaintiff matched coins with Exelby to determine who was to pay for drinks. Some of the drinks served to Exelby after plaintiff knew that Exelby had become intoxicated were paid for by plaintiff and some for both of them were paid for by Exelby. A dispute arose between them as to whether plaintiff owed Exelby for some of the drinks. Exelby then struck plaintiff, causing the damage for which this suit was brought. Because plaintiff paid for some of the beer furnished Exelby while in an intoxicated condition, both courts below held he was not an innocent third party and, therefore, not entitled to recover from the bar owner or his surety under the statute in question.

Plaintiff stresses that the statute forbids the sale of liquor to an intoxicated person and imposes civil liability upon the retailer for injuries resulting to any person by reason of such selling. He denies that the right to such recovery is limited by the statute to plaintiffs who are 'innocent persons.' He relies on Heikkala v. Isaacson, 178 Mich. 176, 144 N.W. 508, 50 L.R.A.,N.S., 857, in which this Court affirmed a judgment for plaintiff against the dealer and his surety to compensate for injuries plaintiff sustained in defendant's bar resulting from an assault upon him by an intoxicated man to whom the dealer had sold liquor while he was intoxicated. This Court held that plaintiff's intoxication at the time or the fact that he may have aggravated his assailant would be no defense to the dealer or his surety. Although plaintiff in the instant case says that the plaintiff in Heikkala also paid for some of the drinks furnished his assailant, the quotation in plaintiff's brief here from the record in Heikkala fails to show this, it is not mentioned in this Court's opinion in that case, and such defense was not raised or considered by the Court. The case, therefore, does not aid in determination of the question here, whether plaintiff's contribution to his assailant's intoxication is a defense to the retailer and his surety.

In McDaniel v. Crapo, 326 Mich. 555, 40 N.W.2d 724, this Court, in considering the statute here involved, said, 'The intoxicated person himself and those who contributed to his intoxication have no right of action. Brooks v. Cook, 44 Mich. 617, 7 N.W. 216 * * *; Morton v. Roth, 189 Mich. 198, 155 N.W. 459; and Malone v. Lambrecht, 305 Mich. 58, 8 N.W.2d 910.' In Brooks it was held that plaintiff, who became intoxicated in defendant's saloon and while in that condition had his pockets picked, could not recover from defendant keeper the money taken from him.

In Morton it was held that plaintiff could not recover against the defendant saloon keeper under this act for injuries sustained by reason of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle by an intoxicated minor to whom, while he was in that condition, the defendant had furnished liquor because plaintiff had...

To continue reading

Request your trial
33 cases
  • Aanenson v. Bastien
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • March 21, 1989
    ... ... Sec. 123.92 (West 1971) ... 5 The statute applied in Kangas v. Suchorski, 372 Mich. 396, 126 N.W.2d 803, 804 (1964), where the court stated that "[t]he intoxicated person himself and those who contributed to ... ...
  • Duncan v. Beres
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 31, 1968
    ... ... 28 ... Certain cases relied on by the third party defendant ...         The principle reiterated in Kangas v. Suchorski (1964), 372 Mich. 396, 126 N.W.2d 803, denying recovery under the dramshop act to the intoxicated person on the ground that he is not an ... ...
  • Longstreth v. Gensel
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • November 27, 1985
    ... ... 10), an intoxicated person cannot sue licensees under Sec. 22 for injuries in this state. See generally, Kangas v. Suchorski, 372 Mich. 396, 399-400, 126 N.W.2d 803 (1964). This Court has not yet chosen to address a licensee's responsibility to an intoxicated ... ...
  • Hollerud v. Malamis
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 10, 1969
    ... ... Crapo (1950), 326 Mich. 555, 40 N.W.2d 724, and in Kangas v. Suchorski (1964), 372 Mich. 396, 6 126 N.W.2d 803 ...         Edward Hollerud alternatively asserts that he has a common law cause of ... ...
  • 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