Title: Clymer v. Webster

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

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, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 88-631


Adam Clymer, Administrator of the            Supreme Court
Estate of Jane E. Clymer, Adam
Clymer, Individually, and Ann F.             On Appeal from
Clymer                                       Chittenden Superior Court

     v.                                      February Term, 1990

Theron C. Webster, James N. Wesson,
Deborah S. Wesson, Wesson's Diner,
Inc., Alydia Garand, Beem, Inc.,
d/b/a The Rotisserie, and J. Duguay


David A. Jenkins, J.

William B. Gray and Peter H. Zamore of Sheehey Brue Gray & Furlong,
   Burlington, for plaintiffs-appellants

Allan R. Keyes and John A. Serafino of Ryan Smith & Carbine, Ltd., Rutland,
   for defendants-appellees James Wesson and Alydia Garand

Frank E. Talbott and Bret P. Powell and Chris O'Brien and M. Cecilia Whelan,
   Law Clerks (On the Brief), of Wilson, Powell, Lang & Faris, Burlington,
   for defendants-appellees Beem, Inc. and Joseph Duguay

Thomas J. Sherrer of Latham, Eastman, Schweyer & Tetzlaff, Burlington, for
   defendants-appellees Deborah Wesson and Wesson's Diner, Inc.



PRESENT:  Gibson, Dooley and Morse, JJ., and Barney, C.J. (Ret.) and
          Springer, D.J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned


     GIBSON, J.   This appeal concerns the remedies available to the parents
and the administrator of the estate of Jane Clymer, an adult decedent, in an
action against two commercial vendors that served alcohol to a patron who
thereafter drove his car and struck and killed the decedent.  Plaintiffs
Adam and Ann Clymer, parents of decedent, and Adam Clymer, as administrator
of the estate of the decedent, appeal from a superior court order dismissing
with prejudice their action against the owners and certain employees of two
commercial vendors that served alcohol to the man who drove the car that
struck and killed their daughter.  The dismissal of the suit was the culmin-
ation of a series of court orders construing the Dram Shop Act, the Wrongful
Death Act, and the Survival Statute.  We reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
                                    I.
     On September 14, 1985, after being served alcohol at The Rotisserie
Restaurant and at Wesson's Diner, Theron Webster drove his car and struck
Jane Clymer, an eighteen-year-old college student, while she was pushing her
her bicycle along the side of Route 116 in the town of Williston.  Ms.
Clymer suffered massive brain damage, but was kept alive until her parents
arrived the next morning, when she was pronounced brain dead and allowed to
expire.  Theron Webster was charged with and pled guilty to DWI-death
resulting.
     In a complaint filed in July of 1986, plaintiffs alleged negligence
against Theron Webster, and a Dram Shop Act violation against the commercial
vendors and certain of the vendors' employees, seeking compensatory damages
for medical and funeral expenses, emotional distress, loss of companionship,
loss of future earnings, and loss of means of support.  Plaintiffs also
sought punitive damages against James Wesson, owner of Wesson's Diner, and
Theron Webster; they later moved to amend their complaint to add a claim for
punitive damages against The Rotisserie and one of its bartenders.
Plaintiffs eventually settled with Theron Webster, and the court dismissed
him from the action over the objections of the other defendants.  After
several rulings that limited the damages recoverable by plaintiffs "to
medical and funeral expenses and lost services and guidance," the court
dismissed the action with prejudice and entered judgment for the defendants
on the ground that those damages did not exceed the $120,000 plaintiffs had
already recovered from the negligent driver.
     On appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred by denying their
claims for (1) damages for deprivation of love, affection and society (loss
of companionship) under the Dram Shop Act and the Wrongful Death Act; (2)
damages for loss of future earnings under the Survival Statute; and (3)
punitive damages under the Dram Shop Act and the Wrongful Death Act.
Plaintiffs also contend that the cumulative effect of the court's rulings
denied them an effective remedy for their injuries, as guaranteed by the
Vermont Constitution.  In their cross-appeal, defendants The Rotisserie and
its bartender (J. Duguay) argue that (1) the trial court erred in dismissing
Theron Webster; (2) the court should exclude expert evidence concerning what
signs of intoxication would be exhibited by a person having a certain blood-
alcohol level; (3) the Legislature has unconstitutionally delegated its
authority to the Liquor Control Board; and (4) the Liquor Control Board
regulation designating what constitutes an unlawful furnishing of alcohol is
unconstitutionally vague.
                                    II.
     We first consider the relationship between the Dram Shop Act (DSA) and
the Wrongful Death Act (WDA).  As we have noted elsewhere, the Legislature
enacted the DSA to create a statutory cause of action where none had
previously been available under the common law.  Winney v. Ransom &
Hastings, Inc., 149 Vt. 213, 215,