Title: Pike v. Chuck's Willoughby Pub, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Pike v. Chuck's Willoughby Pub, Inc. (2005-184); 180 Vt. 25; 904 A.2d 1133

2006 VT 54

[Filed 09-Jun-2006]


       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.


                                 2006 VT 54

                                No. 2005-184


  Marijah Pike and Raymond Pike, Guardian        Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.                                        Orleans Superior Court


  Chuck's Willoughby Pub, Inc.,                  March Term, 2006 
  Charles Nebelski, William Watson and 
  Deborah Watson

  Dennis R. Pearson, J.

  Gregory P. Howe and Jennifer A. Wood (On the Brief), Newport, for
    Plaintiff-Appellee.

  Steven J. Watson, Downs Rachlin Martin PLLC, St. Johnsbury, for
    Defendant-Appellant.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson, Skoglund and Burgess, JJ.

        
       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.   Plaintiffs, Marijah Pike and Raymond Pike, (FN1) 
  brought this action against defendant, Chuck's Willoughby Pub, Inc., (FN2) 
  alleging that defendant overserved a patron who then drove while
  intoxicated and struck the vehicle in which Marijah was a passenger,
  injuring her.  Plaintiffs asserted a number of claims, including one
  seeking damages under the Dram Shop Act [hereinafter DSA].  See 7 V.S.A. §
  501(a) (defining cause of action when provider of alcoholic beverages
  continues to serve someone who is visibly intoxicated).  Defendant moved to
  dismiss the claim, arguing that it was filed beyond the DSA's two-year
  limitations period.  The trial court denied the motion but granted
  defendant's request to file this interlocutory appeal, which presents two
  issues: (1) whether the minority tolling provision of 12 V.S.A. § 551(a)
  applies to an action under the DSA, and (2) whether the discovery rule
  articulated in Lillicrap v. Martin, 156 Vt. 165, 176, 591 A.2d 41, 47
  (1989) (holding that cause of action does not accrue until plaintiff
  discovers injury and its cause), applies to an action under the DSA.  We
  conclude that the minority tolling provision does not apply, but the
  discovery rule does apply.  We do not decide whether application of the
  discovery rule in this case brings plaintiffs' action within the
  limitations period, as this is a factual issue that must be developed in
  the trial court in the first instance.  We affirm in part and reverse in
  part.

       ¶  2.  Plaintiffs allege the following facts in their complaint, and
  we take them as true for purposes of reviewing the trial court's decision
  on the motion to dismiss.  Amiot v. Ames, 166 Vt. 288, 291,