Case Title: Carrick v. Franchise Associates, Inc.

Citation: 164 Vt 418, 671 A.2d 1243

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1995-10-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
CARRICK_V_FRANCHISE_ASSOCIATES.94-637; 164 Vt 418; 671 A.2d 1243

[Opinion Filed 27-Oct-1995]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 11-Dec-1995]


  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. 94-637


Sandra M. Carrick                            Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Rutland Superior Court


Franchise Associates, Inc.,                  September Term, 1995
Howard Johnson Company, and
Prime Hospitality Corporation


Silvio T. Valente, J.

       Richard S. Bloomer of Lorentz, Bloomer & Harnett, P.C., Rutland, for
  plaintiff-appellant

       Douglas D. Le Brun of Dinse, Erdmann & Clapp, Burlington, for
  defendants-appellees


PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and Maloney, Supr J., 
          Specially Assigned


       GIBSON, J.   Plaintiff Sandra Carrick appeals from an order of the
  Rutland Superior Court granting summary judgment to defendants on
  plaintiff's claims of franchisor liability under the Dram Shop Act, 7
  V.S.A. §§ 501-507.  We affirm.

       The facts are not in dispute.  On the evening of January 16, 1991,
  Shawn C. Forrest was a customer at the Plug & Feather Lounge in Rutland. 
  Over the course of approximately four hours, employees of the Plug &
  Feather served Mr. Forrest eight mixed drinks, which he consumed.  Mr.
  Forrest then left the Plug & Feather and, while driving south on Route 7 at
  a high rate of speed, ran a red light and collided with a vehicle driven by
  plaintiff's decedent, Michael Carrick.  Mr. Carrick died of the injuries he
  received in the crash.

       The Plug & Feather is located within the Howard Johnson Restaurant in
  Rutland.  The building housing the restaurant and lounge bears the
  orange-tile roof and other trademarks and trade dress of defendant Howard
  Johnson Company (HJC) and is located next door to a Howard

 

  Johnson Motor Lodge.  The Motor Lodge operates under a license from
  defendant Prime Hospitality Corporation (Prime).  The property on which the
  restaurant and lounge are located is leased to Brown & Currier, Inc., which
  operates the restaurant and lounge under a franchise agreement with
  defendant Franchise Associates, Inc. (FAI).  A separate trademark agreement
  between FAI and HJC allows FAI to license the use of the Howard Johnson
  name and trademarks.

       Plaintiff brought suit in Rutland Superior Court against HJC, FAI and
  Prime, alleging that each had violated Vermont's Dram Shop Act by failing
  to take reasonable steps to prevent Brown & Currier, as operators of the
  Plug & Feather, from overserving alcohol to Mr. Forrest.(FN1)  Defendants
  moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff had failed to show
  that defendants, as franchisors, had sold or furnished alcoholic beverages
  to Mr. Forrest, as required by 7 V.S.A. § 501(a).  The court granted
  summary judgment in defendants' favor, and the present appeal followed.

       A motion for summary judgment should be granted only "if the
  pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,
  together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue
  as to any material fact and that any party is entitled to a judgment as a
  matter of law."  V.R.C.P. 56(c); Ross v. Times Mirror, Inc., No. 94-224,
  slip op. at 2-3 (Vt., July 7, 1995).  The sole issue on appeal is whether
  defendants, as franchisors of the "Howard Johnson" name and trademarks, can
  be held liable under the "furnishing" provision of the Dram Shop Act, which
  states:

      A spouse, child, guardian, employer or other person who is injured in
     person, property or means of support by an intoxicated person, or in
     consequence of the intoxication of any person, shall have a right of action in
     his or her own name, jointly or severally, against any person or persons who
     have caused in whole or in part such intoxication by selling or furnishing
     intoxicating liquor . . . .

7 V.S.A. § 501(a) (emphasis added).

  

       Our previous decisions have defined "furnishing" to include
  "supplying" in a manner other than by selling.  State v. McDermott, 108 Vt.
  58, 60, 182 A. 191, 192 (1936); see also Estate of Kelley v. Moguls, Inc.,
  160 Vt. 531, 535,