Title: Ross by Kanta v. Scott

State: north-dakota

Issuer: North Dakota Supreme Court

Document:

386 N.W.2d 18 (1986) Ryan Douglas ROSS, an infant, by Rudolph P. KANTA, his guardian ad litem, and Rudolph P. Kanta, individually, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Dwayne O. SCOTT; Nemont Packing Company, Inc., a foreign corporation; Williston Lodge No. 239, Loyal Order of Moose, a nonprofit corporation; and Robert Barke, Defendants and Appellees. Civ. No. 10982. Supreme Court of North Dakota. April 10, 1986. *19 Chapman & Chapman, Bismarck, for plaintiffs and appellants; argued by Daniel J. Chapman. Pearce, Anderson & Durick, and William S. Murray, Bismarck, for defendants and appellees Dwayne O. Scott and Nemont Packing Co., Inc.; argued by William S. Murray, appearance by B. Timothy Durick. Letnes, Marshall, Fiedler & Clapp, Grand Forks, for defendant and appellee Williston Lodge No. 239; argued by Howard D. Swanson. GIERKE, Justice. Ryan Douglas Ross[1] and Rudolph P. Kanta[2] appeal from a judgment dismissing their action against Dwayne O. Scott; Nemont Packing Company, Inc. (Nemont); Williston Lodge No. 239, Loyal Order of Moose (Moose Lodge); and Robert Barke for damages arising out of the death of Douglas Kanta (Kanta). They also appeal from orders denying their alternative motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the issue of liability of the Moose Lodge or a new trial against all defendants except Barke.[3] We reverse the judgment and orders denying a new trial and remand for a new trial against all defendants except Barke. After completing work at approximately 6:00 p.m. on December 23, 1980, Kanta, Barke, and others consumed a quantity of beer at their employer's shop. Barke and Kanta left the shop in Kanta's car and went to the Moose Lodge, where they arrived at approximately 8:00 p.m. Kanta drank beer while in the Moose Lodge. After leaving the Moose Lodge at approximately 11:00 p.m., Kanta took Barke home. Barke testified that he arrived home between 11:00 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. Kanta was killed at approximately midnight when his car collided with a semi-trailer operated by Scott as an agent of Nemont at the intersection of 30th Street and Highway Nos. 2 and 85 in Williston. Scott testified that he stopped his vehicle at the stop sign at the bottom of the incline approaching the highway but that he was not sure if he stopped for another stop sign at the entrance to the highway. Scott was starting to turn the tractor into the southbound lane when the collision occurred. At that time, the trailer was blocking both northbound lanes. When asked if he could explain why he did not see the Kanta vehicle coming, Scott replied: Barke testified that Kanta's vehicle would not start at noon the day of the accident, that the battery was "down" and "we had it on a charger from approximately noon that day until we left the shop that evening." He also testified that when Kanta was taking him home that evening he heard a noise underneath the hood when they were a block or two from his home. Barke did not "know for sure if it was a fan belt, alternator belt, you know, power steering belt, or it could have been when we hit a bump in the highway." When asked, "Did you tell him you better get home or he might lose his headlights?", Barke replied, "Yes, I did, if it was his alternator belt." Phillip Sternberger testified that shortly before the accident Kanta's headlights were "fully illuminated" at the intersection of 18th Street. Lieutenant Melvin Udland of the Williston Police Department testified that when he examined Kanta's vehicle at the scene of the accident: A post-mortem blood sample was drawn from Kanta. The State Toxicologist testified that his office determined that ethyl alcohol was present in the blood sample in an amount of "0.27 percent by weight." There was testimony that it is possible that a person with a blood alcohol content of 0.27 percent may not appear to be intoxicated. All of the trial witnesses who saw Kanta at the Moose Lodge testified that he did not exhibit any visible signs of intoxication. The jury returned a special verdict providing in relevant part as follows: A judgment of dismissal was entered, the plaintiffs' post-trial motions were denied, and this appeal followed, in which the plaintiffs have raised issues regarding: (1) a jury instruction based on § 5-01-08.2, N.D. C.C., and the admission of evidence that Kanta had displayed a "false ID" when no witness could testify as to its contents and the Moose Lodge did not maintain a book in compliance with § 5-01-08.1, N.D.C.C.; (2) admission of evidence that Kanta did not possess a valid driver's license; (3) a stop *21 sign instruction; and (4) the jury's findings that Scott was negligent and that his negligence was not a direct cause of Kanta's death. Appellants first urge that the trial court erred in its application of §§ 5-01-08.1 and 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C., which provide: It is undisputed that Kanta was 19 years old at the time of his death. While at the Moose Lodge, Kanta was requested to produce identification. Kanta exhibited to a waitress a "card" of some kind, but none of the witnesses at trial knew what kind of card it was or what it showed. The Moose Lodge did not keep a "book" of the kind required by § 5-01-08.1, N.D.C.C. While at the Moose Lodge, however, Kanta completed a Moose Lodge membership application form in which he represented that he was 21 years old. The trial court instructed the jury that establishment of the factors set forth in § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C., constituted a "defense to a contention that the sale was contrary to law." Appellants contend that so instructing was error. We agree. At the time of Kanta's death, our Dram Shop or Civil Damage Act, § 5-01-06, N.D. C.C., provided:[4] The "contrary to statute" requirement is fulfilled by violation of § 5-01-09, N.D. C.C., which provides: We have previously determined that: "We believe the Legislature intended to fix liability on the maker of an illegal sale where such sale causes the intoxication of the person doing the damage." Fladeland v. Mayer, 102 N.W.2d 121, 123 (N.D.1960). In Iszler v. Jorda, supra, the parents of a minor brought a dram shop action alleging that the defendants illegally sold intoxicating liquor to their minor son and that as a result of drinking the liquor he became intoxicated, lost control of his car, and died from injuries received in an accident. We upheld, as "a fair statement of the law applicable to the case," 80 N.W.2d at 669, the following instruction: See also Wanna v. Miller, 136 N.W.2d 563, 570 (N.D.1965), where we said: Thus, liability may be imposed under § 5-01-06, N.D.C.C., upon a vendor of alcoholic beverages that causes intoxication of a person either by delivering alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 years of age or to an intoxicated person, contrary to § 5-01-09, N.D.C.C. Either type of delivery can result in liability if the person to whom the alcoholic beverages were delivered is or becomes intoxicated. Murphy v. Hennen, 264 Minn. 457, 119 N.W.2d 489 (1963). For liability under the Dram Shop Act to attach to an illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor who becomes intoxicated, the minor need not have been intoxicated at the time of the sale. Maldonado v. Claud's Incorporated, 347 Mich. 395, 79 N.W.2d 847 (1956). We disavow any inference that may be drawn from Jore v. Saturday Night Club, Inc., 227 N.W.2d 889 (N.D.1975), that an illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor can only result in liability under the Dram Shop Act if the minor was intoxicated at the time of the sale. As aptly stated by Justice Maddox, concurring and dissenting in Maples v. Chinese Palace, Inc., 389 So. 2d 120, 125 (Ala. 1980): To establish liability under the Dram Shop Act, the plaintiffs must show: (1) that the Moose Lodge made an illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to Kanta (either because he was under 21 years of age or because he was intoxicated); (2) that the consumption of the alcoholic beverages contributed to a state of intoxication in Kanta; and (3) that such intoxication was a cause of the accident. Jore, supra, 227 N.W.2d at 896. The Moose Lodge asserts that its sale of alcoholic beverages to Kanta was not "contrary to statute" although Kanta was under 21 years of age, because it established a defense under § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C. We believe that the words "subject to the provisions of sections 5-01-08, 5-01-08.1 and 5-01-08.2" in § 5-01-09, N.D.C.C., afford a vendor of alcoholic beverages a defense to an assertion that a sale to a person under 21 was contrary to statute if the vendor is able to establish the factors set forth in § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C. We note that the supreme courts of Wisconsin [Sorensen by Kerscher v. Jarvis, 119 Wis.2d 627, 350 N.W.2d 108 (1984)] and Arizona [Brannigan v. Raybuck, 136 Ariz. 513, 667 P.2d 213 (1983)] have held that the establishment of such factors constitute defenses in common-law negligence actions. The same language in § 5-01-09, N.D.C.C., however, also makes the delivery of alcoholic beverages to a person under 21 subject to the provisions of § 5-01-08.1, N.D.C.C. Because it is undisputed that the Moose Lodge did not keep a book of the kind required by § 5-01-08.1, N.D.C.C., it was error to instruct in accordance with § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C. A vendor that does not keep a book of the kind required by § 5-01-08.1, N.D.C.C., may not avail itself of the provisions of § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C. Sections 5-01-08.1 and 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C., must be considered together. It is the signature (in a book of the kind required by § 5-01-08.1, N.D.C.C.) of a person whose age is questioned that constitutes a false written representation meeting the requirement of § 5-01-08.2(1), N.D.C.C., that the purchaser has "falsely represented in writing,... that he was of legal age." The "other documentary proof" [§ 5-01-08.2(1), N.D.C.C.] is the "identification used in making the purchase" (§ 5-01-08.1, N.D.C. C.), which is to be shown in the book required by § 5-01-08.1, N.D.C.C. Further, under the unique circumstances of this case, the membership application form incidentally completed by Kanta during the course of the evening does not appear to have been relied upon by the Moose Lodge in selling alcoholic beverages to Kanta. Without reliance upon Kanta's written representation, that element of a defense required by § 5-01-08.2(3), N.D.C.C., was not established. It appears that the Moose Lodge relied, if on any document, on a card Kanta exhibited to a waitress. The contents of that card are unknown because the identification used has not been shown in a book of the kind required by § 5-01-08.1, N.D.C.C. We deem the error in instructing in accordance with § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C., to be prejudicial because it affected the burden of proof and we reverse and remand for a new trial. If the Moose Lodge were unable to establish a defense under § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C., then the plaintiffs could recover under § 5-01-06, N.D.C.C., if they established that the Moose Lodge made an illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to Kanta (the sale being illegal because Kanta was under 21), that the consumption of alcoholic beverages contributed to a state of intoxication in Kanta, and that the intoxication was a cause of the accident. If, on the other hand, the Moose Lodge established a defense under § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C., then *24 the plaintiffs could only recover under § 5-01-06, N.D.C.C., if they established that the Moose Lodge delivered alcoholic beverages to Kanta at a time when he was already intoxicated. The plaintiffs must establish intoxication in either case, but the point at which they must prove that Kanta was intoxicated is different. In one case, the plaintiffs need only establish that Kanta was intoxicated by the time the accident occurred and that the Moose Lodge's delivery of alcoholic beverages contributed to that intoxication (if the Moose Lodge does not establish a defense under § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C.). In the other case, the plaintiffs must establish that the Moose Lodge delivered alcoholic beverages to Kanta at a time when he was already intoxicated (if the Moose Lodge establishes a defense under § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C.). Because of our determination that the trial court erred in instructing in accordance with § 5-01-08.2, N.D.C.C., we need not determine whether the court improperly received evidence that Kanta exhibited to a waitress a card of some kind when none of the witnesses at trial knew what kind of card it was or what it showed and the Moose Lodge did not keep a book of the kind required by § 5-01-08.1, N.D.C.C. The trial court admitted, over objection, evidence that Kanta did not have a valid driver's license because "he was under suspension" due to an accumulation of 22 points on his driving record. The court instructed the jury that "[n]o person shall drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state unless such person has a valid license as an operator." The plaintiffs assert that the trial court erred in admitting the evidence that Kanta did not possess a valid driver's license. We agree. In Knoepfle v. Suko, 108 N.W.2d 456 (N.D.1961), the defendant offered to prove that the plaintiff had been convicted of several driving offenses, that his driver's license had been revoked, and that he had failed a driver's examination. We said, at page 465: See also South v. National R.R. Passenger Corp., 290 N.W.2d 819, 839 (N.D.1980), where we said that "evidence of one's past driving record is inadmissible to prove that a person acted negligently on the occasion in dispute." Scott and Nemont have urged that we adopt the "Massachusetts rule" stated in Watson v. Forbes, 307 Mass. 383, 30 N.E.2d 228 (1940), that failure to have a driver's license is evidence of negligence. We decline to do so because, as stated in Hawkins v. United States, 395 A.2d 45, 47 (App.D.C.1978): We are thus unable to agree with the contention of Scott and Nemont that "[i]f it is error, it is not prejudicial error." The trial court instructed the jury: The instruction, which is drawn from a pattern instruction, N.D.J.I. 207, had been requested by counsel for all the parties. Counsel for the plaintiffs, however, withdrew his request for that instruction before the trial commenced. Before the trial court instructed the jury, counsel for the plaintiffs objected to the last sentence of the instruction. Counsel for the Moose Lodge agreed that "the phrase `proceeding at a lawful rate of speed' is an incorrect statement of the law since the adoption of comparative negligence." Counsel for Scott and Nemont did not further address the matter. The plaintiffs argue that the instruction's last sentence suggests "that the person at the stop sign owes no duty to a person traveling at an unlawful rate of speed" and contend that "a person at a stop sign must heed any car traveling on the favored throughway, whether or not it is traveling at a lawful rate of speed." Scott and Nemont argue only that "there is nothing wrong with this instruction and it is the only appropriate instruction to give." We have held that an automobile driver has a duty "to take every reasonable precaution to avoid a collision with another automobile even if such automobile is violating the rules of the road." Thompson v. Nettum, 163 N.W.2d 91, 101 (N.D.1968). The greater the speed with which a vehicle is approaching, the more immediate the hazard it poses. We conclude that inclusion of the words, "proceeding at a lawful rate of speed," in the stop sign instruction constituted error. Our conclusion is consonant with § 39-10-24(2), N.D.C.C., which provides: By its answers to Special Verdict Form Question No. 7(a) and Question No. 7(b), the jury found that Scott was negligent, but that his negligence was not a direct cause of Kanta's death. The plaintiffs have asserted that the evidence is insufficient to support the jury's finding that Scott's negligence was not a direct cause of *26 Kanta's death. Our reversal on other grounds renders unnecessary a determination of this issue. For the reasons stated, we reverse the judgment dismissing the action against the Moose Lodge, Scott and Nemont, and the orders denying a new trial against them, and remand for a new trial against all defendants except Barke. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and MESCHKE, LEVINE and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur. [1] Ryan Douglas Ross is Douglas Kanta's son. He was born after Kanta's death. [2] Rudolph P. Kanta is Douglas Kanta's father. [3] The appellants have asserted that "a new trial should be granted against all defendants, with the exception of Defendant Barke, concerning whom no error is alleged." [4] The statute has since been amended in respects not relevant to our discussion here. [5] With regard to the element of causation, it is important to note that Iszler v. Jorda, supra, and the instant case deal with the recovery of damages by persons injured "in consequence of intoxication" (§ 5-01-06, N.D.C.C.), rather than with the recovery of damages by persons injured "by any intoxicated person" (§ 5-01-06, N.D.C.C.), as in Meshefski v. Shirnan Corporation, 385 N.W.2d 474 (N.D.1986).