Kemock v. Mark II
Decision Date | 27 July 1978 |
Citation | 62 Ohio App.2d 103,16 O.O.3d 254,404 N.E.2d 766 |
Parties | , 16 O.O.3d 254 KEMOCK, Admr., Appellant, v. The MARK II, Appellee. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a business establishment sells alcoholic beverages to one it knows or has reason to believe is intoxicated, and that person is killed as a proximate result of his intoxication, such establishment is liable in damages to the estate of the decedent, unless the deceased exhibited an absence of care on his own behalf which was equal to or greater than that of the defendant.
Don C. Iler, Cleveland, for appellant.
Charles M. Kampinski, Cleveland, for appellee.
This appeal is before the court from a ruling of the court below directing a verdict in favor of the defendant-appellee, The Mark II, in a wrongful death action.
The complaint alleged that the plaintiff-appellant is the duly appointed administrator of the estate of the decedent, Timothy C. Woernley, who died on May 8, 1974. The appellee corporation is alleged to have been at all times relevant hereto a restaurant wherein intoxicating liquors are sold to the public. The gravamen of appellant's complaint is as follows:
The action was brought on behalf of the decedent's five children, all minors. At the time of decedent's death, he was divorced from his ex-wife, the mother of his five children.
Appellee's amended answer generally denies the allegations set forth in the complaint and affirmatively pleads, inter alia, contributory negligence and assumption of the risk on the part of appellant's decedent. Additionally, appellee set forth the defense that the decedent's death occurred as a result of an intervening cause not within appellee's control. Appellee's motion to dismiss the action was overruled by the trial court.
The matter proceeded to trial, and at the close of appellant's evidence, the trial court granted appellee's motion for a directed verdict, pursuant to Civ.R. 50(A). In brief, the court found that the adult decedent acted on his own free will in becoming voluntarily intoxicated. The decedent's conduct, in short, amounted to contributory negligence as a matter of law. It is from the trial court's granting of defendant's motion for a directed verdict which plaintiff appeals and assigns as error the following:
For the reasons articulated herein, we affirm the decision of the trial court.
The facts are these. Appellant's decedent, Timothy C. Woernley, arrived at The Mark II at approximately 9:30 p. m. on May 7, 1974. Timothy Woernley went to The Mark II to see his former brother-in-law, Richard Samples, entertain. That evening, the decedent's ex-wife and Samples' sister-in-law, Deborah, and her girl friend, Chris Houser, were also present. When Timothy Woernley entered The Mark II that evening, he made his way to Deborah's table, sat down and ordered a round of drinks. The order was taken by a waitress who then crossed the room to the bar located directly across from the stage where Richard Samples performed. The table was located approximately fifteen feet from the stage.
At his first break, Samples joined the table, and Woernley ordered drinks for each of them. Samples observed that Timothy Woernley had just showered and appeared fresh. According to the testimony, Timothy Woernley had not been drinking prior to his entering The Mark II. Samples' sister-in-law, Deborah, and her friend left just before 10 p. m. Woernley remained and continued drinking. From approximately 11:15 p. m. to 12 midnight, Samples observed the decedent move from table to table, always with a drink in his hand, and "asking strangers' wives to dance * * * laughing and * * * being boisterous." Throughout the course of the evening, according to Samples, several times the manager of The Mark II entered the lounge area where Woernley drank. Around 11:30 p. m., Samples asked Woernley to calm down but "he just laughed and walked away." Richard Samples expressed the opinion that by 11:30 p. m. that evening, Timothy Woernley was "becoming intoxicated." Samples took an early break at approximately 11:50 p. m. and had a discussion with Woernley in the lobby area. As he pulled Woernley out of the lounge into the lobby, Samples again asked him to calm down, but Woernley struck him. Samples pushed Woernley into a chair, told him to sit there and went to get him a cup of coffee and cigarettes. Upon his return, Woernley had a fresh drink in his hand.
At that point, Samples picked up the keys to Woernley's car and told him he was "in no condition for driving a car." He told Woernley that he would call someone to come and drive him home. Woernley indicated to Samples that he should phone his sister, Susan. Samples phoned the sister. Shortly, Susan's husband and Woernley's cousin arrived at The Mark II. Upon seeing them, Woernley became enraged and rushed towards them. Samples jumped in between and attempted to reason with Woernley but to no avail. Samples wrestled Woernley through the doors and out to the parking lot. Timothy Woernley was "just out of his head at the time, screaming and yelling and carrying on." Indicating that he had to go back in and perform, Samples gave the keys to Woernley's car to one of the two relatives and told them under no circumstances should they give the keys to Timothy, since he was in no condition to drive a car. Woernley then attacked Richard Samples and Samples struck him twice, knocking him to the ground each time. Samples returned to The Mark II. The time was approximately midnight.
Woernley continued to raise "so much cain" that Samples testified he was forced to obtain the keys from the relatives and return them to the decedent. He indicated he told Woernley: Timothy Woernley then drove his car out of the parking lot onto Pearl Road "squeal(ing) his tires all around the corner." Richard Samples would not see Timothy Woernley alive again. The time was approximately 12:30 a. m., May 8, 1974.
Richard Samples further testified that during the time the decedent was in the lounge, he did not fight with anyone. Furthermore, he responded affirmatively to appellee's counsel's question that Timothy Woernley was, while in the lounge, "somewhat happy, albeit loud." Timothy Woernley ordered and drank what was called a "Windsor Press" and, according to Samples, had approximately a dozen drinks.
Officer Kenneth Novak, a Parma policeman, was assigned to traffic patrol that morning of May 8th. While driving westbound on Snow Road, the officer's radar screen...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ohio Cas. Ins. Co. v. Todd
... ... Martin, Jr., Mills, Whitten, Mills, Mills, & Hinkle, Oklahoma City, for defendant Phil Todd d/b/a/ Todd's Tavern ... Mark" Hendricksen, El Reno, Gary B. Homsey, Jerry F. Bryan, Gary B. Homsey & Associates, Oklahoma City, for defendant Rick A. Robertson ... \xC2" ... Thrasher v. Leggett, 373 So.2d 494, 496-497 [La.1979]; Tome v. Berea Pewter Mug, Inc., 4 Ohio App.3d 98, 446 N.E.2d 848, 853 [1982]; Kemock v. Mark II, 62 Ohio App.2d 103, 404 N.E.2d 766, 773, 777 [1978] (the consumer's voluntary action of driving the car was viewed as negligent and not ... ...
-
Lyons v. Nasby
... ... Billings Labor Temple, 179 Mont. 145, 586 P.2d 712 (1978); Tome v. Berea Pewter Mug, Inc., 4 Ohio App.3d 98, 446 N.E.2d 848 (1982); Kemock v. Mark II, 62 Ohio App.2d 103, 404 N.E.2d 766 (1978) ... A third approach used by courts to deny liability is to find that the ... ...
-
Tomlinson v. McCutcheon
... ... But a subsequent decision, Kemock v. The Mark III, 62 Ohio App.2d 103, 16 O.O.3d 254, 404 N.E.2d 766 (Cuyahoga Co., 1978), suggests that the Supreme Court misstated the facts; that ... ...
-
Osler v. City of Lorain
... ... Such a finding was properly made by the court of appeals in Kemock v. The Mark II (1978), 62 Ohio App.2d 103, 117-118, 404 N.E.2d 766 [16 O.O.3d 254] where the decedent was not only driving while intoxicated, but ... ...