Case Title: Thompson v. Dewey's South Royalton, Inc.

Citation: 169 Vt. 274, 733 A.2d 65

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1999-05-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Thompson v. Dewey's South Royalton, Inc.  (97-273); 169 Vt. 274; 733 A.2d 65

[Filed 21-May-1999]

       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal  revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter  of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any  errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.

                                 No. 97-273

Ken Thompson, Annette Potwin and	       Supreme Court
Ashley and Tessa Thompson
                                               On Appeal from
     v.		                               Orange Superior Court

Dewey's South Royalton, Inc., Erlina 	       May Term, 1998
Gay Farrington, Merle Howe, Mark Nemeth,
So. Royalton House, Inc., Michael Brown
and Thomas Powers

David T. Suntag, J.

       James A. Dumont of Keiner & Dumont P.C., Middlebury, for
  Plaintiff-Appellant Thompson.

       Michael F. Hanley and Barney L. Brannen of Plante, Hanley & Brannen,
  P.C., White River Junction, for Plaintiff-Appellant Potwin.

       David H. Bradley and David R. Putnam of Stebbins, Bradley, Wood &
  Harvey, P.A. Hanover, New Hampshire, for Defendant-Appellees Dewey's South
  Royalton, Inc., Farrington, Howe and Nemeth.  

       Robert G. Cain and John G. Beiswenger of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc.,
  Burlington, for Defendants-Appellees South Royalton House, Inc. and Brown.

       J. Christopher Callahan and Tracy Kelly of Richards and Brady, P.C.,
  Springfield, for Defendant-Appellee Powers.

PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Morse, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and 
          Corsones, D.J., Specially Assigned

       MORSE, J.  Plaintiffs instituted this action under the Dram Shop Act
  (DSA), 7 V.S.A.  § 501, against two licensed vendors of alcoholic
  beverages, seeking damages resulting from an  intoxicated person's death. 
  The trial court granted defendants' motion to dismiss, see V.R.C.P. 
  12(b)(6), ruling that plaintiffs, who were third persons injured as a
  consequence of an imbiber's  death, did not have a cause of action under
  the DSA.  We reverse.

       The salient facts pled in the complaint are as follows.  See Amiot v.
  Ames, 166 Vt. 288,  291,