Case Title: Hatter v. Nations

Citation: 480 So. 2d 1209

Docket Number: 

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 1985-11-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
480 So. 2d 1209 (1985)
Robert HATTER and Nina Hatter
v.
Sharon NATIONS.
84-638.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 22, 1985.
Rehearing Denied January 24, 1986.
George B. Azar for Azar, Campbell & Azar, Montgomery, for appellants.
Thomas T. Gallion III for Hooper, Gallion & Wilkerson, Montgomery, for appellee.
ADAMS, Justice.
Plaintiffs, Robert and Nina Hatter, appeal to this Court seeking a reversal of the Montgomery County Circuit Court's summary judgment against them and in favor of defendant, Sharon Nations. We affirm.
According to the documents filed in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, it appears that on Friday, May 20, 1983, Nations and another female, Julie Reeves, met Guy Allen Samply, Jr., at the Alabama Club at approximately 6:00 p.m. After about an hour, the three went to Samply's trailer, where they drank the better portion of twelve beers and a bottle of bourbon. The three stayed at the trailer until early the next morning. At about 4:00 a.m. Saturday, Samply drove Reeves home, and then took Nations back to the Alabama Club to pick up her car. Upon their arrival at the Alabama Club, Nations *1210 realized that she had left her purse at Samply's trailer. She called her husband, who brought her an extra set of car keys and then returned home. Samply told Nations that he would follow her home and then drive her back to his trailer to get her purse, so they would not have to take two cars to the trailer. While Samply was driving Nations back to the trailer, the car he was driving collided with a car being driven by plaintiff Nina Hatter, who sustained permanent injuries as a result of the accident.
Robert and Nina Hatter filed suit against Samply and Nations on October 20, 1983. Samply is not involved in this appeal, as summary judgment was not rendered against him. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that:
Nations filed a motion for summary judgment on July 6, 1984, which the court granted by written order on July 23, 1984, stating:
On appeal, plaintiffs ask this Court to expand the scope of Buchanan v. Merger Enterprises, Inc., 463 So. 2d 121 (Ala.1984), in order to create a common law negligence cause of action which would allow them to recover from defendant Nations. Plaintiffs contend that Nations breached a duty that she owed to the general public when she asked Samply to violate Alabama law by driving his car while he was under the influence of alcohol. We are of the opinion that plaintiffs' theory of recovery is meritless.
Over 100 years ago, this Court announced the rule that there was no common law cause of action for negligently dispensing alcohol. King v. Henkie, 80 Ala. 505 (1876). In 1979, this Court reaffirmed this position in DeLoach v. Mayer Electric Supply Co., 378 So. 2d 733 (Ala. 1979). Five years later, in Buchanan, supra, we held that whether the conduct of employees of a licensed vendor was unreasonable, *1211 due to their failure to stop serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated patron who they knew or should have known would try to drive a car, was a negligence question for the jury to decide.
All three of these cases contain a key element which is noticeably absent from the facts herein: the sale or distribution of alcohol. In DeLoach, this Court noted that the majority of jurisdictions in the United States fail to recognize a common law cause of action for negligent distribution of alcohol. Of the handful of states that do recognize such a cause of action, the majority have restricted recovery to actions involving the sale of alcohol by vendors. Buchanan, supra.
The requirement of a sale of alcohol by a licensed vendor is obviously lacking in this case. Moreover, it is undisputed that Nations did not purchase or otherwise furnish any alcohol to Samply. We are of the opinion that the trial court was correct when it found that Nations breached no duty owed to the plaintiffs, and, as such, was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is due to be, and it hereby is, affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C.J., and MADDOX, JONES and SHORES, JJ., concur.
[1]  Although summary judgment was rendered against plaintiffs on all of the above claims, in their brief they limit their argument to claims 4. and 5. Therefore, we pretermit discussion of claims 1., 2., and 3.