Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc.

Decision Date17 August 1998
Docket NumberNo. 24830.,24830.
Citation332 S.C. 90,504 S.E.2d 318
PartiesRobert L. TOBIAS and Mary Ellen Tobias, Petitioners, v. The SPORTS CLUB, INC.; Hotel Associates, a Limited South Carolina Partnership; The Ramada Hotel; Mallards: Interstate Management and Investment Corporation; E.L. Pooser; and Robert A. Dean of whom Hotel Associates, a Limited South Carolina Partnership; The Ramada Hotel; Mallards; Interstate Management and Investment Corporation; E.L. Pooser; and Robert A. Dean, are Respondents.
CourtSouth Carolina Supreme Court

James A. Merritt, Jr. and William K. Witherspoon, both of Berry, Adams, Quackenbush & Stuart, P.A., and Deborah R.J. Shupe, of Louthian & Louthian, for petitioners.

James W. Alford and Andrew Haselden, all of Barnes, Alford, Stork & Johnson, LLP, Columbia, for respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS

FINNEY, Chief Justice:

We granted certiorari to consider the Court of Appeals' decision holding that the defenses of contributory negligence and assumption of the risk were available in a negligence suit1 brought by the intoxicated adult patron against the tavern owner who served him. Tobias v. The Sports Club, Inc., 323 S.C. 345, 474 S.E.2d 450 (Ct.App.1996).2 We now join the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed this issue, and hold that South Carolina does not recognize a "first party" cause of action against the tavern owner by an intoxicated adult predicated on an alleged violation of S.C.Code Ann. §§ 61-5-303 and/or 61-9-4104 (1990). We therefore overrule Christiansen v. Campbell, 285 S.C. 164, 328 S.E.2d 351 (Ct.App.1985)cert. denied Order, dated June 27, 1985, and its progeny to the extent they recognize a first party action, but explicitly retain the right of injured third parties to maintain a negligence suit against the tavern owner based on a violation of these statutes. Accordingly, the opinion of the Court of Appeals in this case, which upheld the trial court's denial of petitioners' new trial motions, is affirmed as modified.

South Carolina Code Ann. § 61-4-580(2) prohibits the knowing sale of beer or wine to an intoxicated person, while § 61-6-2220 prohibits the sale of alcoholic beverages contained in minibottles to intoxicated persons. In recognizing a private cause of action for a violation of these statutes, the Court of Appeals stated that their purpose is to promote public safety, and to prevent an already intoxicated person from becoming even more intoxicated, and thus an even greater risk to the public at large, when he leaves the establishment. Christiansen, supra; Daley v. Ward, 303 S.C. 81, 399 S.E.2d 13 (1990). We agree. The Court of Appeals went further, however, and held that another of the statutory purposes was to protect the intoxicated person from their own incompetence and helplessness, and therefore concluded the intoxicated patron himself was entitled to bring a negligence suit for a statutory violation. We disagree, and now hold that public policy is not served by allowing the intoxicated adult patron to maintain a suit for injuries which result from his own conduct.

Imposing liability on a tavern owner for continuing to serve an intoxicated person who later injures others serves public policy by imposing upon the tavern owner a duty to use judgment and discretion. We do not believe that the owner will exercise this judgment and discretion less prudently if he risks a law suit only when the intoxicated person injures others. The decision to refuse to serve alcoholic beverages, beer or wine to an intoxicated patron will be unaffected by our decision today. In overruling Christiansen, we join other jurisdictions that have refused to allow intoxicated persons to maintain a first party action against a tavern owner based on alleged violations of statutes imposing criminal penalties for the sale of alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated adult. See Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (De.1981)

; Bertelmann v. Taas Associates, 69 Haw. 95, 735 P.2d 930 (1987); Cuevas v. Royal D'Iberville Hotel, 498 So.2d 346 (Miss.1986); Ohio Casualty Ins. Co. v. Todd, 813 P.2d 508 (Ok.1991); Estate of Kelly v. Falin, 127...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Lydia v. Horton
    • United States
    • South Carolina Court of Appeals
    • October 30, 2000
    ...the theory of "negligent entrustment" of a vehicle to an intoxicated individual is novel in South Carolina. In Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., 332 S.C. 90, 504 S.E.2d 318 (1998), our Supreme Court concluded there is no first party cause of action under the alcohol control statutes against the ......
  • Marcum v. Bowden
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • February 5, 2007
    ...only to third parties, and then only when he knowingly sells alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person. Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., 332 S.C. 90, 504 S.E.2d 318 (1998). In imposing this limited liability upon commercial hosts, the Court relied upon alcohol beverage control statutes to ex......
  • Donze v. Gen. Motors, LLC
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • May 17, 2017
    ...driving which should bar Donze from recovering in this case. Specifically, GM suggests this Court's opinions in Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc. , 332 S.C. 90, 504 S.E.2d 318 (1998), and Lydia v. Horton , 355 S.C. 36, 583 S.E.2d 750 (2003), created "a public policy-based affirmative defense" aga......
  • Bridges v. Park Place Entertainment, 2002-CA-02145-SCT.
    • United States
    • Mississippi Supreme Court
    • December 4, 2003
    ...who voluntarily consumes alcoholic beverages to excess and sustains injury as result of his intoxication.); Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., 332 S.C. 90, 504 S.E.2d 318 (1998) (First party causes of action against a tavern owner by an intoxicated adult predicated on alleged violation of alcohol......
  • 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