Turk v. Long Branch Saloon, Inc., 40587

• Court: Supreme Court of Minnesota (US)
• Writing for the Court: SHERAN
• Citation: 159 N.W.2d 903,280 Minn. 438
• Parties: Edward John TURK, Jr., Appellant, v. LONG BRANCH SALOON, INC., David A. Sandstrom, dba Sandy's Bar, Royal Lounge, Inc., dba Royal Bar, Dorothy A. Telega, dba Pickwick, Uncle Jim's Bar Inc., dba Uncle Jim's Tavern and Joe Minerich, dba Taconite Haven, Defendants, Respondents. Dorothy A. TELEGA, dba Pickwick, third-party plaintiff, Respondent, v. Alan D. BALAVANCE and Patrick Stanchfield, Third-Party Defendants, George Lampe and Dolly E. Hoffman, dba Crystal Lounge, third-party defendants, Respondents.
• Docket Number: No. 40587,40587
• Decision Date: 21 June 1968

Page 903

159 N.W.2d 903 280 Minn. 438 Edward John TURK, Jr., Appellant,
v.
LONG BRANCH SALOON, INC., David A. Sandstrom, dba Sandy's
Bar, Royal Lounge, Inc., dba Royal Bar, Dorothy A. Telega,
dba Pickwick, Uncle Jim's Bar Inc., dba Uncle Jim's Tavern
and Joe Minerich, dba Taconite Haven, Defendants,
Respondents.
Dorothy A. TELEGA, dba Pickwick, third-party plaintiff,
Respondent,
v.
Alan D. BALAVANCE and Patrick Stanchfield, Third-Party
Defendants,
George Lampe and Dolly E. Hoffman, dba Crystal Lounge,
third-party defendants, Respondents. No. 40587. Supreme Court of Minnesota. June 21, 1968.

Page 904

Syllabus by the Court

[280 MINN 438] A person who is injured because of the intoxication of another is [280 MINN 439] not afforded a right of action by Minn.St. 340.95 for the recovery of damages sustained when he himself has participated actively and knowingly in the process of 'illegally selling, bartering, or giving' the intoxicating liquor to a minor whose resultant intoxication caused the injury.

O'Leary, Trenti, Berger & Carey, Virginia, for appellant.

Gordon Rosenmeier and John Simonett, Little Falls, for Long Branch Saloon, Inc.

Vernon Saxhaug, Virginia, for Sandstrom.

Sullivan, McMillan, Hanft & Hastings, Edward Fride, and Noel Muller, Duluth, for Royal Lounge, Inc., dba Royal Bar.

Spellacy, Spellacy & Lano, Grand Rapids, for Dorothy A. Telega.

John Holland, Aurora, for Minerich.

Roger Nierengarten, St. Cloud, Ralph Harvey, Virginia, for Hoffman.

OPINION

SHERAN, Justice.

Appeal from a judgment of the district court.

On November 12, 1964, at approximately 1 a.m., plaintiff, an adult, sustained personal injury while riding as a passenger in an automobile owned and operated by Alan D. Balavance, then 20 years of age. Action was instituted on the theory that plaintiff has a right of action for damages because of Minn.St. 340.95, which provides:

'Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person who is injured in person or property, or means of support, by any intoxicated person, or by the intoxication of any person, has a right of action, in his own name, against any person who, by illegally selling, bartering or giving intoxicating liquors, caused the intoxication of such person, for all damages, sustained; * * *.'

[280 MINN 440] The trial court granted motions made by defendants and third-party defendant Dolly E. Hoffman for summary judgment on facts developed through pretrial depositions and which, so far as now relevant, are not in dispute. The judgment from which the appeal is taken was then entered.

Page 905

The issue for decision is whether by reason of § 340.95 a person who is injured because of the intoxication of another can recover the damages sustained even though he himself participated actively and knowingly in the process of 'illegally selling, bartering or giving' the intoxicating liquor to a minor whose resultant intoxication caused the injury.

A finding that plaintiff was actively and knowingly involved in the events which gave rise to the intoxication of Balavance appears inescapable in light of these facts disclosed by the record:

As a result of arrangements made during the afternoon of November 11, 1964, plaintiff, Balavance, and two other companions made a tour of bars located in places including Aurora, Gilbert, Virginia, and Biwabik, Minnesota, during the course of which they visited about six liquor establishments and consumed perhaps as many as 15 to 20 servings of intoxicating liquor apiece. In addition, service was apparently refused at one bar and they were denied entrance to another.

At the places they visited, each of the group would on occasion pay for a round of drinks. Because plaintiff apparently had more money than the others, it is probable that he bought more than his share. Plaintiff also joined with Balavance and one of the others in buying the gas used on the tour. He had known Balavance for many years and knew that he was not 21. At the time the arrangements for the venture were made, plaintiff was sober and fully aware of what the general pattern for the evening's activities would be. The young men had been moving about and drinking together for at least 6 hours when Balavance, while taking one of the group to his home in Aurora, collided with a parked car. This accident caused the damages for which plaintiff seeks to recover from the dealers who supplied intoxicating liquor to Balavance.

If the asserted right of action exists, it is because of § 340.95. Whether the statute permits recovery in this situation depends, in turn, on the intent of the legislature. But the language of the statute, considered without reference to prior judicial construction of it, does not make this [280 MINN 441] intent clear. Recovery may or may not have been intended, depending on the legislative purpose accounting for the enactment of the law. ¹

If the purpose was to impose the loss resulting from intoxication upon those who illegally supply the liquor,...