Wilson v. Steinbach, No. 48565-8

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Washington
• Writing for the Court: WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS; BRACHTENBACH, C.J., STAFFORD, DIMMICK, DOLLIVER, DORE and PEARSON, JJ., and CUNNINGHAM; UTTER
• Citation: 656 P.2d 1030,98 Wn.2d 434
• Docket Number: No. 48565-8
• Decision Date: 29 December 1982
• Parties: Bruce WILSON and Carolyn Wilson, husband and wife; and Bruce Wilson, a Personal Representative of the Estate of Shelly L. Wilson, Petitioners, v. Glen L. STEINBACH and Jane Doe Steinbach, husband and wife, Respondents.

Page 434

98 Wn.2d 434 656 P.2d 1030 Bruce WILSON and Carolyn Wilson, husband and wife; and
Bruce Wilson, a Personal Representative of the
Estate of Shelly L. Wilson, Petitioners,
v.
Glen L. STEINBACH and Jane Doe Steinbach, husband and wife,
Respondents. No. 48565-8. Supreme Court of Washington,
En Banc. Dec. 29, 1982.

Page 435

[656 P.2d 1031] Timothy Carpenter, Bellingham, for petitioners.

Pinckney Rohrback, Seattle, for respondents.

Bryan Harnetiaux, Robert H. Whaley, Spokane, amicus curiae.

WILLIAM H. WILLIAMS, Justice.

Petitioners Bruce and Carolyn Wilson, the surviving parents, and the estate of Shelly L. Wilson, brought this negligence action seeking damages from respondents Glen L. and Jane Doe Steinbach under the wrongful death and survival action statutes, RCW 4.20.010 and RCW 4.20.046. The trial court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the claims. In

Page 436

an unpublished per curiam opinion, Division One of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's entry of summary judgment against petitioners. Wilson v. Steinbach, 31 Wash.App. 1012 (1982). We likewise affirm.

Shelly L. Wilson, age 19, was engaged to be married to respondents' son, Gerald Steinbach. On the evening of December 23, 1978, and in the early morning hours of December 24, 1978, Ms. Wilson attended a pre-Christmas party hosted by respondents. The beverages available at the party included two bottles of liquor provided by respondents, but guests were also encouraged to bring their own beverages if they so desired. While at the home of respondents, Shelly Wilson consumed an undetermined amount of alcoholic beverages. It is unknown whether Ms. Wilson consumed alcoholic beverages before attending respondents' party. Upon leaving the party with Gerald Steinbach as her passenger, Shelly Wilson lost control of her vehicle, struck a utility pole, and was killed. Counsel for petitioners alleged that, at the time of her death, Shelly Wilson's blood alcohol content was .19 percent. The evidence before the trial court on summary judgment, however, did not substantiate this allegation.

Petitioners commenced this lawsuit on November 9, 1979, alleging negligence on the part of respondents in permitting Shelly Wilson to become intoxicated and thereafter operate a motor vehicle. Respondents answered by denying liability and asserting, as an affirmative defense, Ms. Wilson's own negligence as the proximate cause of her death. Respondents then moved for summary judgment based on the pleadings and the affidavits of Glen L. Steinbach, Carol Steinbach, and Gerald Steinbach. Petitioners countered with an affidavit of their legal counsel which set forth no facts to contravene the factual assertions of the three Steinbach affidavits. The trial court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals, Division One, affirmed. Wilson v. Steinbach, supra. We then granted petitioners' petition for review.

Page 437

Since the trial court decided the liability issue in this case on an order of summary judgment, we must engage in the same inquiry as the trial court. Highline Sch. Dist. 401 v. Port of Seattle, 87 Wash.2d 6, 15, 548 P.2d 1085 (1976). A summary judgment motion under CR 56(c) can be granted only if the pleadings, affidavits, depositions, and admissions on file demonstrate there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is [656 P.2d 1032] entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Barrie v. Hosts of America, Inc., 94 Wash.2d 640, 642, 618 P.2d 96 (1980). The court must consider all facts submitted and all reasonable inferences from the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage Co. v. Central Heating & Plumbing Co., 81 Wash.2d 528, 530, 503 P.2d 108 (1972); Barber v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 81 Wash.2d 140, 142, 500 P.2d 88 (1972). The motion should be granted only if, from all the evidence, reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion. Morris v. McNicol, 83 Wash.2d 491, 494-95, 519 P.2d 7 (1974).

Prior to 1955, Washington had a "Dramshop Act" (formerly RCW 4.24.100) which provided a civil cause of action to those injured by an intoxicated person against any person who, by providing intoxicating liquors, caused the intoxication of such person. ¹ In 1955, the Legislature repealed that act. Laws of 1955, ch. 372, § 1, p. 1538. Since that time, the applicable law has been the following:

It is generally held that there can be no cause of

Page 438

action against one furnishing liquor in favor of those injured by the intoxication of the person so furnished, even though the liquor was sold or given to one in violation of a law other than under a civil damage act, so long as the person to whom the liquor was sold or given was not in such a state of helplessness or debauchery as to be deprived of his will power or responsibility for his behavior.

Halvorson v. Birchfield Boiler, Inc., 76 Wash.2d 759, 762, 458 P.2d 897 (1969), quoting with approval from 30 Am.Jur. Intoxicating Liquors § 521 (1958). Accord, Hulse v. Driver, 11 Wash.App. 509, 512-14, 524 P.2d 255 (1974). In Halvorson, we recognized and adopted the general common law rule of nonliability for furnishing intoxicants to an able-bodied person, while simultaneously recognizing the exceptions to the rule for obviously intoxicated persons, persons in a state of helplessness, or persons in a special relationship to the furnisher of intoxicants. Halvorson, 76 Wash.2d at 762-63, 458 P.2d 897.

In the instant case, the trial court considered the pleadings and affidavits of Glen L. Steinbach, Carol Steinbach, and Gerald Steinbach in determining the summary judgment motion. A careful review of these documents indicates petitioners have failed to establish that Shelly Wilson was in an obviously intoxicated or helpless condition at respondents' home that night. The uncontroverted affidavits of each of the Steinbachs indicates that none of them had any indication Shelly Wilson was intoxicated and each believed she acted in a "responsible and ladylike" manner. Clerk's Papers, at 8.

The trial court also considered the opposing affidavit of Timothy W. Carpenter, attorney...