Title: Swett v. Haig's, Inc.

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

SWETT_V_HAIGS_INC.94-049; 164 Vt 1 ; 663 A.2d 930

[Opinion Filed 02-Jun-1995]

[Motion for Reargument Denied 5-Jul-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. 94-049


Tanya Swett                                       Supreme Court

     v.                                           On Appeal from
                                                  Bennington Superior Court
Haig's, Inc., Defendant &
Third-party Plaintiff
                                                  September Term, 1994
     v.

Eric Jensen, Third-party
Defendant


Ellen H. Maloney, J.

J. Norman O'Connor and William W. Adams of Donovan & O'Connor, Adams,
 Massachusetts for third-party plaintiff-appellant 

Shannon A. Bertrand of Abell, Kenlan, Schwiebert & Hall, P.C., Rutland, for
third-party defendant-appellee 

Bret P. Powell and Christopher O'Brien of Wilson Powell Lang & Faris,
Burlington, for amicus curiae Friends of Fairness in Vermont Dram Shop Law. 


PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ., and St. Helaire, Dist. J.,
Specially Assigned 


     DOOLEY, J.   The principal issue in this case is whether the
Dram Shop Act permits contribution from an intoxicated driver for
damages a dram shop may be required to pay a motorist injured in an
accident with the intoxicated driver.  The trial court held that
contribution was not available.  We conclude that the Act authorizes
contribution, and therefore, we reverse.

     Haig's, Inc., a dram shop, was sued by plaintiff Tanya Swett, a 
motorist who was seriously injured in an accident caused by Eric
Jensen while he was operating his vehicle in Jamaica, Vermont.
Plaintiff alleged that Jensen was intoxicated and that Haig's Inc. 
served him

 

liquor despite his intoxicated state.  She further alleged that as a
direct consequence of Haig's acts, the accident and her injuries 
occurred.  Haig's filed a third-party complaint against Jensen,
seeking contribution to any damages paid plaintiff pursuant to 
501(f) of the Dram Shop Act, 7 V.S.A.  501-507, which permits
contribution from "any other responsible person."  Jensen sought to
dismiss the complaint, arguing that he was not a responsible party
under the Act and, therefore, could not be held liable indirectly
under its contribution provision.

     In holding that contribution was unavailable, the trial court
determined that an intoxicated driver is not a responsible person
under the Dram Shop Act, and reasoned that "the plain meaning of 7 
V.S.A.  501(f) allows defendant dram shops to have a right of
contribution from other sellers of alcoholic beverages, but not
against those to which the statute's creation of liability does not 
apply, such as the driver."  The third-party complaint was 
dismissed, and Haig's appealed.

     Some background is necessary to put the question before us in
context.  Much of the law in this area has been shaped by the
all-too-common circumstance of a driver, who is served alcoholic
beverages by a dram shop after becoming visibly intoxicated, and who
then becomes involved in an automobile accident, usually injuring
another motorist.  At common law, the dram shop was not liable to
the injured motorist on the theory that the intoxicated driver's 
action was the sole proximate cause of the accident.  See Winney v.
Ransom & Hastings, Inc., 149 Vt. 213, 215,