Kvanli v. Village of Watson
| Decision Date | 17 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 39834,39834 |
| Citation | 272 Minn. 481,139 N.W.2d 275 |
| Parties | Arlen KVANLI, Respondent, v. VILLAGE OF WATSON, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Liability under the Civil Damage Act, Minn.St. 340.95, is not restricted to cases where damage is caused by the person to whom the intoxicating liquor was furnished by the defendant.
2. As a condition of liability under the Civil Damage Act there must be a practical and substantial relationship between the circumstances making a sale of liquor illegal and the circumstances accounting for the consumption of it by the one whose intoxication caused damage.
3. Evidence held sufficient to support a jury finding of the required causal relationship in this case.
4. A jury finding of intoxication held supported by the evidence.
5. A jury finding that intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury-producing accident held to be supported by adequate evidence.
6. Claims of reversible error because of evidence received at trial rejected with respect to (a) a release executed by plaintiff of his cause of action against the person inflicting the injury, the amount received in settlement having been accepted in evidence; and (b) the judgment roll in criminal proceedings against an employee of the defendant involving a charge arising out of the illegal sale of liquor, it being the case that the prior plea of guilty was admissible for the purposes of impeachment.
7. The verdict was not the product of passion and prejudice and has adequate evidentiary support in the record.
Meehl, Wiltrout & Blaufuss, Marshall, John C. Haave, Montevideo, for appellant.
Johnson, Schmidt & Thompson, Willmar, Nelson & Oyen, Montevideo, for respondent.
Appeal from an order of the district court denying defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or, in the alternative, for a new trial.
On July 22, 1960, while employed at a drive-in theater near Montevideo, Arlen Kvanli was injured when struck by a motor vehicle operated by Lee Lanes. Kvanli sued defendant, which operates a municipal liquor store in the village of Watson, claiming that it illegally sold intoxicating liquor to Michael Preckel, a minor; that Preckel shared his purchase with Lanes, also a minor; and that the accident occurred because Lanes became intoxicated as a result. The action was premised on the Civil Damage Act of the State of Minnesota, Minn. St. 340.95. The jury, instructed that any award should be reduced by $12,000 which plaintiff had previously received in settlement of his claim against Lanes, returned a verdict in plaintiff's favor for $27,500.
The appeal raised these issues:
(1) Does the Civil Damage Act (§ 340.95) impose liability for damages caused by a person other than the one to whom the intoxicating liquor was furnished by the defendant?
(2) Does the evidence support a finding that the intoxication of Lanes, if any, was 'caused' by an illegal sale of liquor within the meaning of § 340.95?
(3) Does the evidence support a finding that the accident which resulted in injury to plaintiff was caused by intoxication on Lanes' part?
(4) Did the trial court commit prejudicial error (a) in rejecting a release executed by Kvanli when he settled with Lanes; and (b) in receiving in evidence the judgment roll in proceedings where an employee of the defendant pleaded guilty to an information charging him with having sold 30 bottles of strong beer to Michael Preckel, a minor, on July 22, 1960?
(5) Is the amount of the verdict returned by the jury so high as to reflect passion and prejudice and if not, does the evidence support a verdict in the amount awarded by the jurors?
1. Liability under the Civil Damage Act is not restricted to cases where damage is caused by the person to whom the intoxicating liquor was furnished by the defendant. Benes v. Campion, 186 Minn. 578, 244 N.W. 72; Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457, 119 N.W.2d 489, noted in 48 Minn.L.Rev. 126.
2. But to establish liability under § 340.95 there must be a practical and substantial relationship between (a) the circumstances making the sale illegal, and (b) the circumstances accounting for the consumption of the liquor by the one whose intoxication caused damage. For example, there would be no such relationship between a sale illegal because made to an obviously intoxicated adult and consumption of the liquor by another adult who received it from the purchaser after he had regained sobriety.
3. In this case the trial court limited the ambit of the seller's responsibility by instructing that it was the plaintiff's burden to show that the manager of the defendant liquor store knew or had reason to know that the liquor sold to Michael Preckel would be consumed by others. While this instruction would not serve for general use, it was an adequate limitation in this case. There was evidence that Preckel purchased twenty-four 12-ounce bottles of beer under circumstances which should have indicated to the liquor store operator that the minor would share it with others forbidden by law to purchase the liquor themselves. An object of the prohibition of sale to minors is to guard against use by persons presumed to lack mature judgment. The danger is as great where he gives it to another, also a minor, as if the purchaser consumes it himself.
The time elapsing between an illegal sale and consumption by a third person, or the occurrnece of other intervening events, could make the relationship between the sale and the use too tenuous to permit a finding of causal relationship. But where, as here, the minor purchases a quantity of intoxicating liquor far in excess of that which he might reasonably be expected to consume himself; and where there is no evidence of facts which would cause the seller to believe the purchase to have been made for any purpose other than immediate consumption; and where, as here, the purchaser and his companions, also minors, promptly consume a sufficient quantity of the liquor to become intoxicated (even though not on the premises and in view of the supplier), we believe the evidence sufficient to support a jury finding of a causal relationship between the circumstances of the illegal sale and the resulting intoxication.
4. The evidence also supports a finding that Lanes became intoxicated because of the consumption of the strong beer. He consumed at least 48 ounces of it within a period of 2 hours immediately before the accident. Expert opinion was adduced to show that this would result in a blood alcohol content of .12 percent at the time of the collision with resultant loss of judgment and perception. The admission of this opinion was not error. 1 The manner in which Lanes drove the automobile involved immediately before and after the accident also supports this finding.
5. The jury was justified in concluding that intoxication caused plaintiff's injury. Lanes, accompanied by the other two minors, entered the drive-in theater where Kvanli was working as a special policeman by way of the 'exit' driveway. He then drove about 30 miles per hour at night with lights out along an alley between rows of parked cars; lost control of the vehicle so that it collided with one of the loudspeaker assemblages; reduced his speed from about 30 miles per hour to a near stop about 10 feet from plaintiff; and then accelerated. Trying to avoid being run over, Kvanli raised his arms and hands before him. The ring finger of his left hand caught the rearview mirror appended to the moving car. The injury resulted. The vehicle then sped from the parking area, the driver making no attempt to give aid or comfort to the injured plaintiff. The jury could infer that lack of judgment or perception resulting from intoxication produced by the consumption of the liquor was a proximate cause of the events which brought about the injury. There is nothing in the record to support a finding that negligence on the part of plaintiff himself was the sole cause of the accident. Concurring negligence, if any, would not bar recovery. 2 6. We find no reversible error with respect to the ruling of the trial court on matters of evidence.
(a) A release executed by plaintiff when his cause of action against Lanes was settled was not relevant to the issues of the case. The amount received was significant and that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., No. A06-1007.
...faced with arrest could have been substantially and directly caused by his alcohol-impaired judgment. Cf. Kvanli v. Village of Watson, 272 Minn. 481, 485, 139 N.W.2d 275, 278 (1965) (concluding that a jury could infer "that lack of judgment or perception resulting from [a driver's] intoxica......
-
Anderson v. Moulder
... ... David L. White, Sanders, Watson & White, David Katz, Bluefield, for William R. Keesee, III and Mercer Wholesale Co ... Harris, 170 N.W.2d 621, 625 (Iowa 1969) ... [183 W.Va. 86] See Pollard v. Village of Ovid, 180 Mich.App. 1, 446 N.W.2d 574 (1989); Herrly v. Muzik, 374 N.W.2d 275 (Minn.1985) ... Bartley, 727 P.2d 1109 (Colo.1986); Kvanli v. Village of Watson, 272 Minn. 481, 139 N.W.2d 275 (1965); Thompson v. Victor's Liquor Store, ... ...
-
Reeves v. Gentile
...negligence available as defense where plaintiff sought to break up fight between intoxicated bar patrons); Kvanli v. Village of Watson, 272 Minn. 481, 139 N.W.2d 275, 278 (1965) (concurring negligence of third-party plaintiff would not bar recovery); Feuerherm v. Ertelt, 286 N.W.2d 509, 511......
-
Jones v. BP Oil Co., Inc.
...courts have recognized the foreseeability of resulting injury in similar circumstances. See Morris, supra; Kvanli v. Village of Watson, 272 Minn. 481, 139 N.W.2d 275 (1965). For example, in Morris, the Supreme Court of Alaska stated that "[i]t was neither unforeseeable nor extraordinary tha......