Shea v. Matassa

• Decision Date: 01 February 2007
• Docket Number: No. 211, 2006.,211, 2006.
• Citation: 918 A.2d 1090
• Parties: Susan C. SHEA, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Christopher M. Shea and as Parent and Next Friend of Christopher L. Shea, a minor, Plaintiff Below, Appellants, v. Kathryn H. MATASSA, XL Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation, Christopher John Bisaha and John Doe, Defendant Below, Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Delaware

918 A.2d 1090

Susan C. SHEA, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Christopher M. Shea and as Parent and Next Friend of Christopher L. Shea, a minor, Plaintiff Below, Appellants, v. Kathryn H. MATASSA, XL Group Ltd., a Delaware corporation, Christopher John Bisaha and John Doe, Defendant Below, Appellee.

No. 211, 2006.

Supreme Court of Delaware.

Submitted: November 29, 2006.

Decided: February 1, 2007.

Court Below: Superior Court of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County, C.A. No. 05C-07-224.

Upon appeal from the Superior Court. AFFIRMED.

Richard A. DiLiberto, Jr. (argued) and Jennifer M. Kinkus, Wilmington, Delaware for appellants.

Jeffrey A. Young, (argued) Young & Young, Dover, Delaware for appellees XL Group, Ltd., Christopher John Bisaha and John Doe.

C. Scott Reese (argued) and Noriss E. Cosgrove, Cooch & Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware for appellee Kathryn H. Matassa.

John S. Spadaro, Murphy, Spadaro & Landon, Wilmington, Delaware; William M. Erhart, Wilmington, Delaware for amicus curiae Delaware Trial Lawyers Association.

William M. Kelleher, Ballard Spahr Andres & Ingersoll, LLP, Wilmington, Delaware for amicus curiae Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

James J. Haley, Jr., Wilmington, Delaware for amicus curiae Defense Counsel of Delaware.

Before STEELE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND, BERGER, JACOBS, and RIDGELY, Justices, constituting the court en banc.

STEELE, Chief Justice.

This litigation arises from a fatal car accident involving Philip Healy and Delaware State Police Corporal Christopher M. Shea. Before the accident, Healy had consumed alcohol at the home of defendant-appellee, Kathryn Matassa and later at Arena's Bar and Deli.¹ At the time of the accident, Healy had a .336 blood alcohol concentration. Both Healy and Corporal Shea died at the scene. Susan Shea, Individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Christopher M. Shea and as Parent and Next Friend of Christopher M. Shea, Jr. and Elizabeth L. Shea, brought this suit against the Tavern defendant-appellees and Matassa in Superior Court. The complaint alleged that the defendants negligently caused Corporal Shea's death. The trial judge granted the Tavern defendant-appellees motion for judgment on the pleadings and Mattassa's motion for summary judgment. Shea appealed.

Shea argues that this Court should create a common law cause of action for dram shop liability and hold the Tavern defendant-appellees responsible for Corporal Shea's death because they negligently served Healy alcohol knowing that he would then drive while intoxicated. Further, Shea alleges that Matassa should be liable for Corporal Shea's death under social host liability theory because she negligently served Healy alcohol at her home, thus violating her duty to prevent him from leaving and then driving while intoxicated. Shea contends that this Court has never rejected a social host liability theory, so such a ruling would not require overturning any precedent.

We conclude that the General Assembly, not this Court, should decide whether to create a cause of action for dram shop liability or social host liability. The General Assembly heavily regulates the sale and use of alcohol and by so doing has clearly announced its intent to occupy exclusively the field of policy making in that subject area. Furthermore, the parties raise controversial and competing public policy questions which the General Assembly can more effectively debate, consider and resolve through the legislative process. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 17, 2004, Philip Healy attended a funeral followed by a reception at Harry's Savoy Grill in Wilmington, Delaware. Afterwards, Healy drove to the home of his sister, defendant-appellee Kathryn Matassa, in Pot-Nets Seaside, Longneck, Delaware to attend a family gathering at approximately 4:00 p.m. During the family gathering, various types of food and alcoholic and nonalcoholic beverages were available for guests. Healy consumed alcohol at Matassa's home.² Healy left Matassa's home at approximately 10:30 p.m. and later went to Arena's Bar & Deli, a tavern in Rehoboth Beach, Delaware, where he consumed more alcohol.³ At approximately 1:15 a.m. on July, 18, 2004, Healy left Arena's and drove northbound on Delaware Route 1. At the intersection of Routes 1 and 16 he crashed into another car, damaging his headlights and injuring the passenger of that car. Healy continued driving and crossed the median driving north in the southbound lanes of Route 1 for approximately nine miles. At approximately 2:05 a.m., Healy collided head on with on duty Delaware State Police Corporal Christopher M. Shea. Corporal Shea survived for 49 minutes and died at 2:54 a.m. Healy died at the scene. Healy's blood alcohol concentration was .336. Corporal Shea's wife Susan C. Shea and minor children, Christopher M. Shea, Jr. and Elizabeth L. Shea survive him.

Shea filed the complaint in Superior Court on July 20, 2005 against Matassa and the Tavern defendant-appellees seeking damages for Corporal Shea's death. In the complaint, Shea alleged that the defendants were negligent and/or grossly negligent in serving alcoholic beverages to Healy, who drove his car under the influence, thereby causing the car accident in which Corporal Shea died.

Tavern defendant-appellees filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings on October 11, 2005, and the trial judge issued an order granting the motion on January 10, 2006. Shea appealed to this Court on February 1, 2006, which this Court dismissed on the grounds that the appeal was interlocutory. Matassa moved for summary judgment on January 10, 2006, and on March 31, 2006, the trial judge issued an order granting the motion. On April 26, 2006, Shea filed a Notice of Appeal in this Court seeking reversal of the trial judge's decisions granting the Tavern defendant-appellees' motion for judgment on the pleadings and Matassa's summary judgment motion. On July 28, 2006, Tavern defendant-appellees moved to affirm the trial judge's decision granting the motion for judgment on the pleadings, and Matassa moved to affirm the trial judge's decision granting summary judgment. This Court denied those motions on August 9, 2006.⁴

DISCUSSION

"We review a trial judge's grant of summary judgment de novo. We will affirm a trial judge's grant of summary judgment when, viewing the facts and inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, if there are no issues of material fact in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."⁵ Furthermore, we are reviewing two questions of law regarding dram shop liability and social host liability which are subject to de novo review.⁶

1. Dram Shop Liability

Shea contends that this Court should establish a common law Dram Shop cause of action, resulting in the tavern defendant-appellees being held liable for Corporal Shea's death because the tavern's employees served Healy alcohol in the tavern knowing that Healy would drive away while intoxicated. To support this argument, Shea cites cases from several jurisdictions that recognize a common law dram shop cause of action.⁷ Shea contends that because the General Assembly has never enacted a dram shop law despite the opportunity to do so, this Court should therefore create a common law limited dram shop cause of action to fill the resulting legislative vacuum.

This Court, in an unbroken line of cases over the past twenty-five years, has determined that the establishment of a Dram Shop cause of action presents a social policy issue for the legislature, not the Court.⁸ "The essential rationale underlying this line of cases is that the determination of whether to impose liability on tavern owners for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons involves significant public policy considerations and is best left to the General Assembly."⁹ As this Court has held:

The liability of commercial vendors of alcohol has been traditionally treated through judicial deference to legislative action or inaction. Since state regulation of the commercial dispensing of alcohol is the norm, the lack of statutorily-imposed liability through `Dram Shop Acts' or comparable legislation mitigates against the creation of such a cause of action on common law grounds. Delaware has no `Dram Shop Act' and, as this Court noted in Wright, the desirability of such a measure is a matter for the General Assembly.¹⁰

This Court also noted that "[t]he General Assembly is in a far better position that this Court to gather the empirical data and to make the fact finding necessary to determine what the public policy should be as to Dram Shop law, and the scope of any such law."¹¹ In Wright, we also noted that the scope issue has many practical implications; for example:

should any such liability extend to hotel dining room, or restaurant owner (or to social host) as well as to a `tavern' owner? should it extend to assaults or other torts by an inebriated patron? to whom should such an action accrue? Should there be a special rule for minors? And, inevitably, if a cause of action were recognized under any of these circumstances, a commercial dispenser of alcoholic beverages (and, probably, a social host) would be a party to every suit in which an intoxicated person is alleged to have committed a tortious act.¹²

"[H]istorically, our Courts have recognized that the General Assembly has the power and responsibility to license and regulate the use and sale of alcoholic beverages for the benefit of the public."¹³ The General Assembly has traditionally governed the alcoholic beverage business,¹⁴ and the various new statutes (or recent amendments) suggest that the legislature decided to try different ways to reduce alcohol related vehicle accidents as an alternative to enacting a dram shop law. In 2003, in the 142nd General Assembly, Senator Peterson and Representative Keeley sponsored Senate Bill No. 51 to...