Noonan v. Galick, No. 101292
| Court | Superior Court of Connecticut |
| Writing for the Court | PHILLIPS |
| Citation | 19 Conn.Supp. 308,112 A.2d 892 |
| Parties | Shirley NOONAN et al. v. Thomas GALICK et al. |
| Decision Date | 07 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 101292 |
Page 892
v.
Thomas GALICK et al.
Page 893
[19 Conn.Supp. 309] Koskoff & McMahon, Plainville, for plaintiffs.
Snow Gene Munford and Schofield & Fay, Hartford, for defendants Thomas and Helen Galick.
J. Robert Lacey, Southington, for defendant Emanuel Maddalena.
PHILLIPS, Judge.
In this action an attempt is made to hold a permittee for the sale of liquor liable in common-law negligence for serving intoxicating liquors to the plaintiff in such quantities as to make her intoxicated and for serving them to her while intoxicated; and also in statutory negligence for serving her intoxicating liquors while intoxicated in violation of General Statutes, § 4239, and for serving such liquors to her after legal hours in violation of § 4296. It is alleged that in consequence of such negligence the plaintiff was subsequently run over while lying on the highway. Section 4307 of the General Statutes, which makes the seller of liquor to an intoxicated person liable to a person injured by the purchaser, is not directly
Page 894
involved in this case, as it is the intoxicated person herself who is here suing. The defendant has demurred to so much of the complaint as seeks to hold the permittee liable.The plaintiff has cited no case at common law which renders the seller of intoxicating liquor liable under such circumstances. There is abundant authority for the proposition that no remedy exists against the dispenser of liquor for injuries and damage resulting from the acts of an intoxicated person except to the extent provided by statute. See 48 C.J.S., Intoxicating Liquors, § 430, p. 716, and cases cited. The rule in based on the theory that the proximate cause of the injury [19 Conn.Supp. 310] is the act of the purchaser in drinking the liquor and not the act of the vendor in selling it. Ibid. To provide a remedy in such cases, the so-called civil damage acts, or 'dram shop acts' have been passed in numerous states, including Connecticut. General Statutes, § 4307.
If there is no remedy at common law against the seller in favor of one injured by the purchaser of liquor, certainly there can be none in favor of the intoxicated person himself. In such a case, not only is the act of selling the liquor not the immediate cause of the injury, but if it were, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff himself would...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Longstreth v. Gensel, Nos. 71465
...to an intoxicated person who subsequently causes injury to himself as the result of intoxication. Noonan v Galick, 19 Conn Supp 308, 310; 112 A2d 892 (1955); see 48A CJS, Intoxicating Liquors, Sec. 428 at 134. A growing number of cases, however, have recognized that one of the very hazards ......
-
Hollerud v. Malamis, Docket No. 4173
...7 Mich.App. 640, 152 N.W.2d 712; Duncan v. Beres (1968), 15 Mich.App. 318, 331, 166 N.W.2d 678; Noonan v. Galick (1955), 19 Conn.Sup. 308, 112 A.2d 892; See Note, 49 Minn.L.Rev. 1154, 1156 (1965); Comment, 12 Baylor L.Rev. 388 (1960); 45 Am.Jur.2d, Intoxicating Liquors, § 553, p. 852. Simil......
-
Lyons v. Nasby, No. 87SC387
...would, therefore, find that such a person is excluded from the class of persons protected by this safety statute. See Noonan v. Galick, 19 Conn.Supp. 308, 112 A.2d 892 (1955); Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (Del.1981); Fisher v. O'Connor's, Inc., 53 Md.App. 338, 452 A.2d 1313 (1982); Cueva......
-
Wegleitner v. Sattler, No. 20211
...have provided additional authority for the South Dakota legislature to address dram shop liability. In Noonan v. Galick, 19 Conn.Sup. 308, 112 A.2d 892 (1955), the court noted that since the legislature did not provide a statutory remedy against a seller of intoxicating beverages to an into......
-
Longstreth v. Gensel, Nos. 71465
...to an intoxicated person who subsequently causes injury to himself as the result of intoxication. Noonan v Galick, 19 Conn Supp 308, 310; 112 A2d 892 (1955); see 48A CJS, Intoxicating Liquors, Sec. 428 at 134. A growing number of cases, however, have recognized that one of the very hazards ......
-
Hollerud v. Malamis, Docket No. 4173
...7 Mich.App. 640, 152 N.W.2d 712; Duncan v. Beres (1968), 15 Mich.App. 318, 331, 166 N.W.2d 678; Noonan v. Galick (1955), 19 Conn.Sup. 308, 112 A.2d 892; See Note, 49 Minn.L.Rev. 1154, 1156 (1965); Comment, 12 Baylor L.Rev. 388 (1960); 45 Am.Jur.2d, Intoxicating Liquors, § 553, p. 852. Simil......
-
Lyons v. Nasby, No. 87SC387
...would, therefore, find that such a person is excluded from the class of persons protected by this safety statute. See Noonan v. Galick, 19 Conn.Supp. 308, 112 A.2d 892 (1955); Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (Del.1981); Fisher v. O'Connor's, Inc., 53 Md.App. 338, 452 A.2d 1313 (1982); Cueva......
-
Wegleitner v. Sattler, No. 20211
...have provided additional authority for the South Dakota legislature to address dram shop liability. In Noonan v. Galick, 19 Conn.Sup. 308, 112 A.2d 892 (1955), the court noted that since the legislature did not provide a statutory remedy against a seller of intoxicating beverages to an into......