FILED

October 9, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS

HORACE A. LaRUE a nd CARLA LaRUE, ) KNOX CI RCUI T

Pa r e nt s a nd ne xt of ki n of ) C. A. No. 03A01- 9702- CV- 00053

RANDALL CHARLES LaRUE, de c e a s e d, )

 )

 )

 Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

vs . ) HON. WHEELER A. ROSENBALM

 ) J UDGE

 )

 )

 )

 )

 )

1817 LAKE I NCORPORATED, d/ b/ a ) AFFI RMED I N PART,

BONKERS, HOWARD R. TANNENBAUM, ) REVERSED I N PART

RI CKY CHAMBERS, ROBERT ARCHER, ) AND REMANDED.

a nd DANNY G. BREWER, )

 )

 De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

WI LLI AM A. SI MMS, Ar ne t t , Dr a pe r & Ha good, Knoxvi l l e , f or Appe l -

l a nt .

RI CHARD W. BAKER, J R. , Gilr e a t h & As s oc i a t e s , Knoxvi l l e , f or

Appe l l ee, Da nny G. Br e we r .

CAROL A. BEELER f or Appe l l ee, Pe r ma ne nt Ge ne r a l Compa ni e s , I nc .

DOUGLAS L. DUTTON, Hodge s , Dought y & Ca r s on, Knoxvi l l e , f or

Appe l l e e , Ma r yl a nd Ca s ua l t y I ns ur a nc e Co. 
2

J AMES Y. REED, J e nki ns & J e nki ns , Knoxvi l l e , f or Appe l l e e , Ri c ky

Cha mbe r s . 
3

O P I N I O N

Mc Mur r a y, J udge

Thi s cas e ar i s e s f r om a mot or c yc l e acci de nt i n whi c h Ra ndy

La Rue , t he 20- ye a r ol d s on of t he pl a i nt i f f s , wa s ki l l e d.

Pl a i ntif f s s ue d 1817 La ke , I nc . d/ b/ a Bonke r s , a Knoxvi l l e

r e s t a ur a nt a nd ba r , a nd Howa r d Ta nne nba um, pr e s i de nt of 1817 La ke

I nc . , a l l e gi ng t ha t t he de f e nda nt s ne gl i ge nt l y a nd unl a wf ul l y

s e r ve d Ra ndy a nd hi s c ompa ni on, de f e nda nt Da nny Br e we r , a l c ohol i c

be ve r a ge s on t he e ve ni ng of t he a c c i de nt . Pl a i nt i f f s a l s o s ue d

Robe r t Ar c he r , t he ba r t e nde r who a l l e ge dl y pr ovi de d LaRue a nd

Br e we r wi t h t he dr i nks , a nd Ri c ky Cha mbe r s , t he door ma n on dut y a t

Bonke r s t ha t ni ght . The r e ma i ni ng de f e nda nt , Da nny G. Br e we r wa s

t he ope r a t or of t he mot or c yc l e a t t he t i me of t he acci de nt whi c h

r e s ul t e d i n Ra nda l l Cha r l e s La Rue ' s deat h.

The cas e pr oceede d t o t r i a l be f or e a j ur y. At t he cl os e of

pl a i ntif f s ' pr oof , h owe ve r , the tr i a l c our t di r e c t e d a ve r di c t in

f a vor of a l l t he de f e nda nt s a nd di s mi s s e d t he c ompl a i nt . Thi s

a ppe a l r e s ul t e d. We a f f i r m t he c our t ' s r ul i ng a s t o t he " dr a m

s hop" de f e nda nt s a nd r e ve r s e t he di r e c t e d ve r di c t i n f a vor of Da nny

Br e we r , t he dr i ve r of t he mot or c yc l e .

On Oc t obe r 26, 1992, Ra ndy LaRue a nd Da nny Br e we r pl a ye d gol f

i n t he mor ni ng a nd e a r l y a f t e r noon. Br e we r t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he y
4

bought a 12- pa c k of be e r on t he wa y a nd whi l e pl a yi ng, e a c h of t he m

dr a nk f our or f i ve . The y pl a ye d f r om a bout 10: 00 a . m. unt i l 2: 00

i n t he a f t e r noon. On t he wa y ba c k t he y we nt t o a l i quor s t or e a nd

bought a bot t l e of cheap wi ne cal l e d Ci s c o, a nd s plit it while

" dr i vi ng a r ound. " Br e we r t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he y e nde d up a t LaRue ' s

hous e be t we e n 4: 15 a nd 5: 00 p. m. a nd a t e di nne r t he r e .

 Whi l e a t t he LaRue hous e , t he y s poke wi t h Pa m Va nde r gr i ff, who

wa s c l e a ni ng t he hous e . She t e s tif i e d tha t ne i t he r one of t he m

a ppear e d t o be dr unk or unde r t he i nf l ue nc e of a l c ohol a nd t ha t

" t he y j us t s eeme d t o be j us t nor ma l guys . " She di d not s e e e i t he r

of t he m dr i nk a ny be e r whi l e t he y we r e t he r e . Br e we r te s tif i e d

t ha t he ha d a c up of be e r a t t he LaRue hous e . 

Af t e r l e a vi ng LaRue ' s hous e , t he y ma de t wo br i e f s t ops , one a t

a f r i e nd' s hous e a nd a not he r at Br e we r ' s hous e . At Br e we r ' s hous e ,

t he y de c i de d t o t a ke Br e we r ' s Suz uki mot or c yc l e t o Bonke r s .

Bonke r s i s a r e s t a ur a nt a nd ba r on t ha t por t i on of Cumbe r l a nd

Ave nue , i n c l os e pr oxi mi t y t o t he Uni ve r s i t y of Te nne s s e e c a mpus ,

known a s " t he s t r i p. " Re s pondi ng t o t he que s t i on of whe t he r he wa s

unde r t he i nf l ue nc e of a n i nt oxi c a nt be f or e t he y got t o Bonke r s ,

Br e we r r e pl i e d, " I ha d a s l i ght buz z , but I wa s not int oxi c a t e d

dr unk, no. "
5

The y a rri ve d a t Bonke r s be f or e i t s r e gul a r ope ni ng hour a nd

we r e a llowe d to e nt e r . Br e we r te s tif i e d t ha t t he door ma n, Cha mbe r s ,

l e t t he m i n, but bot h Cha mbe r s a nd t he ba r t e nde r , Ar c he r , t e s t i f i e d

t ha t i t wa s Ar c he r who ope ne d t he door f or t he m. I t i s undi s put e d

t ha t no one a s ke d e i t he r Ra ndy LaRue or Br e we r f or age i de nt i f i cation nor di d a nyone s t a mp t he i r ha nds wi t h a de s i gna t i on of e i t he r

unde r or ove r 21 ye a r s of a ge , whi c h wa s Bonke r s ' nor ma l pol i c y.

The wi t ne s s e s ' s t or i e s di ve r ge c ons i de r a bl y a t t hi s poi nt .

Br e we r t e s t i f i e d t ha t he a nd Ra ndy s a t down a t t he ba r , a nd Ar c he r

s e r ve d t he m a pi t c he r of beer . Br e we r t e s t i f i e d t ha t t o t he be s t

of hi s knowl e dge , Ar c he r ga ve t he m t he dr i nks t he y ha d t ha t ni ght ,

becaus e Ar c he r wa s a f r i e nd of Ra ndy LaRue . Br e we r di d not pa y f or

a ny dr i nks , a nd he s a i d t ha t he di d not s e e Ra ndy pa y f or a ny

e i t he r , a l t hough he c oul dn' t be c ompl e t e l y s ur e whe t he r he di d or

not . At one poi nt i n hi s t e s t i mony, Br e we r s a i d he t hought t ha t

t he y dr a nk be t we e n one a nd t hr e e pi t c he r s , a nd pr oba bl y one a pi e c e ,

a nd a t a not he r poi nt he s a i d he t hought he ha d dr unk 10 or 12 be e r s

a t Bonke r s .

Ar c he r te s tif i e d tha t a f t e r the y we r e a dmitte d, the y r e que s t e d

t o be s e r ve d, and Ar c he r r e f us e d becaus e t he y we r e not "of age . "

Ra ndy LaRue t he n t ol d Ar c he r not t o wor r y be c a us e Br e we r ha d a f a ke

I . D. , a nd Ar c he r r e plie d tha t it di dn' t ma tte r . Ar c he r te s tif i e d

t ha t la t e r he notic e d tha t the two we r e s itting with s ome f r i e nds
6

t ha t ha d bought a pi t c he r , a nd t he y ha d gl a s s e s a nd we r e dr i nki ng

f r om t he pi t c he r . Ar c he r s t a t e d t ha t a l t hough he kne w bot h LaRue

a nd Br e we r we r e unde r 21, he di d not hi ng a bout t he m s ha r i ng dr i nks

from the pi t c he r . Ar c he r t e s t i f i e d t ha t he t hought t he y we r e dr unk

whe n t he y got t he r e , a nd no mor e dr unk whe n t he y l e f t . Howe ve r ,

pl a i ntif f s i nt r oduc e d Ar c he r ' s s i gne d s t a t e me nt t o pol i c e inve s tiga t or Tom Pr e s s l e y, i n whi c h Ar c he r s t a t e d, " I don' t know wha t the y

ha d be f or e t he y c a me i n he r e , but I don' t t hi nk t he y we r e dr unk. "

LaRue and Br e we r we r e at Bonke r s f or a l i t t l e ove r an hour .

Br e we r t e s t i f i e d t ha t as t he y we r e l eavi ng, Ar c he r ga ve hi m a Cr own

Roya l a nd c oke , s a yi ng, " he r e ' s one f or t he r oa d, guys . " Br e we r

s t a t e d t ha t he " s l a mme d" t he dr i nk j us t be f or e l e a vi ng. 

LaRue br i e f l y c onve r s e d wi t h Cha mbe r s a s he wa s l e a vi ng a nd

whi l e Br e we r , who ha d a l r e a dy e xi t e d, wa s s i t t i ng on hi s mot or c yc l e . Cha mbe r s t e s t i f i e d t ha t he wa s ve r y concer ne d t ha t Br e we r wa s

dr unk, becaus e hi s eye s we r e r e d and gl a s s y and "he wa s act i ng

wi l d. " He s t a t e d t ha t he expr e s s e d concer n t o LaRue a bout ge t t i ng

on t he mot or c yc l e wi t h Br e we r , a nd t r i e d t o pe r s ua de hi m not t o do

s o a nd of f e r e d t o f i nd hi m a not he r r i de . Cha mbe r s t e s t i f i e d t ha t

Ra ndy LaRue di d not a ppe a r dr unk a t t he t i me , a nd t ha t he c oul dn' t

t e l l t ha t a nyt hi ng wa s wr ong with hi m. LaRue ' s la s t wor ds to

Cha mbe r s we r e , " Ri c k, if I di dn' t thi nk he we r e capa bl e of dr i vi ng

i t , I woul dn' t ge t on it . " 
7

Bot h Ar c he r and Cha mbe r s t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he y wi t ne s s e d t he two

l e a vi ng, a nd t ha t t he y we r e he a de d e a s t , t owa r d downt own a nd t he

acci de nt s i t e wi t h Br e we r dr i vi ng. Br e we r te s tif i e d tha t be f or e

t he a c c i de nt oc c ur r e d t he y he a de d we s t , a nd s t oppe d a t a f r i e nd' s

hous e on Conc or d St r e e t t o pi c k up a vi de o ga me . 

The a c c i de nt oc c ur r e d on t he Ma i n Ave nue r a mp i n downt own

Knoxvi l l e , be t we e n 9: 15 a nd 9: 30 p. m. , a l mos t imme di a t e l y a f t e r the

t wo l e f t Bonke r s . The mot or c yc l e s t r uc k t he ri ght s i de of a

gua r dr a i l a s t he y we r e e xi t i ng t he r a mp. No ot he r ve hi c l e s we r e

i nvol ve d. Ra ndy LaRue wa s t hr own be t we e n 30 a nd 40 f e e t f r om t he

mot or c yc l e , s us t a i ne d a ma s s i ve he a d i nj ur y a nd ne ve r r e ga i ne d

c ons c i ous ne s s . 

Fi r s t on t he s c e ne wa s Mr . J i m He nde r s on, a n e mpl oye e of t he

Knox Count y She r i f f ' s De pa r t me nt who wa s t he n of f dut y a nd

t r a ve l i ng wi t h hi s wi f e . He s t oppe d hi s c a r a nd a s s i s t e d Br e we r ,

who ha d s us t a i ne d a s e r i ous l e g i nj ur y but wa s c ons c i ous .

He nde r s on a s ke d Br e we r wha t ha ppe ne d a nd he s a i d " t ha t t he y ha d

came of f the hill a t Ma i n St r e e t goi ng t oo f a s t a nd he ha d l os t

c ont r ol . " Ms . Tr i c i a Ammons , a pa r a me di c , t e s t i f i e d t ha t Br e we r

t ol d he r at t he s cene t ha t he "wa s dr i vi ng a little too f a s t a nd he

l os t c ont r ol a nd wr e c ke d. " 
8

At t he t i me of t he acci de nt , Br e we r ' s bl ood al c ohol l e ve l wa s

de t e r mi ne d t o be 0. 21, a nd LaRue ' s wa s me a s ur e d a t 0. 10. Br e we r

l a t e r pl e d gui l t y t o a c ha r ge of c r i mi na l l y ne gl i ge nt homi c i de . 

I .

The f i r s t is s ue we will a ddr e s s i s t he pr opr i e t y of t he tr i a l

c our t ' s a c t i on i n di r e c t i ng a ve r di c t i n f a vor of t he " dr a m s hop"

de f e nda nt s , i.e . , al l t hos e de f e nda nt s t ha t we r e al l e ge d t o be

ne gl i ge nt i n pr ovi di ng a l c ohol t o LaRue a nd Br e we r . As the pa r tie s

r ecogni ze, our a na l ys i s i s gove r ne d by T. C. A. §§ 57- 10- 101 a nd 102,

whi c h s t a t e :

57- 10- 101. Pr oxi mat e c aus e . — The ge ne r a l as s e mbl y

he r e by f i nds a nd de c l a r e s t ha t t he c ons umpt i on of a ny

a l c ohol i c be ve r a ge or beer r a t he r t ha n t he f ur ni s hi ng of

a ny al c ohol i c be ve r a ge or beer i s t he pr oxi ma t e caus e of

i nj ur i e s i nf l i c t e d upon a not he r by a n int oxi c a t e d pe r s on.

57- 10- 102. St andar d of Pr oof . —Not wi t hs t a ndi ng t he

pr ovi s i ons of § 57- 10- 101, no j udge or j ur y ma y pr onounc e

a j udgme nt a wa r di ng da ma ge s t o or on be ha l f of a ny pa r t y

who ha s s uf f e r e d pe r s ona l i nj ur y or de a t h a ga i ns t a ny

pe r s on who ha s s ol d a ny a l c ohol i c be ve r a ge or be e r ,

unl e s s s uc h j ur y of t we l ve ( 12) pe r s ons ha s f i r s t

a s cer t a i ne d be yond a r e a s ona bl e doubt t ha t t he s a l e by

s uc h pe r s on of t he a l c ohol i c be ve r a ge or be e r wa s t he

pr oxi ma t e c a us e of t he pe r s ona l i nj ur y or de a t h s us t a i ne d

a nd t ha t s uc h pe r s on:

( 1) Sol d t he al c ohol i c be ve r a ge or beer t o a

pe r s on known t o be unde r t he a ge of t we nt y- one ( 21)

year s and s uc h pe r s on c a us e d t he pe r s ona l i nj ur y or

deat h a s t he di r e c t r e s ul t of t he c ons umpt i on of

t he a l c ohol i c be ve r a ge or be e r s o s ol d; or
9

( 2) Sol d t he a l c ohol i c be ve r a ge or be e r t o a n

obvi ous l y i nt oxi c a t e d pe r s on a nd s uc h pe r s on c a us e d

t he pe r s ona l i nj ur y or de a t h a s t he di r e c t r e s ul t

of t he c ons umpt i on of t he a l c ohol i c be ve r a ge or

be e r s o s ol d. 

I t s e e ms qui t e c l e a r tha t f or T. C. A. § 57- 10- 102 t o a ppl y, t he

pl a i ntif f s mus t pr ove be yond a r e a s ona bl e doubt t ha t t he de f e nda nt s

" s ol d" an al c ohol i c be ve r a ge t o La Rue and Br e we r . The s t a t ut e i n

each and eve r y i ns t a nce r e qui r e s a s a l e be f or e l i a bi l i t y can be

i mpos e d. The r e i s no di r e c t e vi de nc e nor e vi de nce i n t he r ecor d

f r om whi c h an i nf e r e nce can r eas ona bl y be dr a wn, t ha t t he r e wa s a

s a l e t o e i t he r Br e we r or LaRue by t he " dr a m s hop" de f e nda nt s .

Pl a i ntif f s a r gue , howe ve r , t ha t t he s t a t ut e s houl d not be c ons t r ue d

a s t o r e qui r e a " s a l e " of a l c ohol t o a mi nor or obvi ous l y i nt oxi -

cat e d pe r s on. The y a r gue t ha t , be c a us e of publ i c pol i c y a ga i ns t

f ur ni s hi ng a l c ohol t o mi nor s , a s howi ng be yond a r e a s ona bl e doubt

t ha t a de f e nda nt " f ur ni s he d" a l c ohol t o a pe r s on unde r 21 s houl d be

e nough to a llow a jur y t o de c i de whe t he r t he f ur ni s hi ng wa s t he

pr oxi ma t e caus e of an acci de nt . We mos t r e s pect f ul l y di s a gr ee. We

s houl d f i r s t not e tha t it is withi n the pr ovi nc e of t he Ge ne r a l

Assembl y t o e s t a bl i s h a nd pr oc l a i m publ i c pol i c y. The Supr e me

Cour t in Wa t s on v. Cl e ve l a nd Cha i r Co, 789 S. W. 2d 538 ( Te nn. 1989) ,

ma de t he f ol l owi ng obs e r va t i ons :

A de f i nitive s t a t eme nt on the a ut hor ity of the

c our t s t o de t e r mi ne publ i c pol i c y c a n be f ound i n

Na s hville Ry. a nd Li ght Co. v. La ws on, 144 Te nn. 78, 91,
10

229 S. W. 741 ( 1920) , c i t i ng f r om Li c e ns e Ta x Ca s e , 5

Wa l l , 469, 18 L. Ed. 497:

" Thi s Cour t c a n know not hi ng of publ i c pol i c y

e xc e pt f r om t he c ons t i t ut i on a nd t he l a ws , a nd t he

c our s e of a dmi ni s t r a t i on a nd de c i s i on. I t ha s no

l e gi s l a tive powe r s . I t c a nnot a me nd or modi f y a ny

l e gi s l a tive a c t s . I t c a nnot e xa mi ne que s t i ons a s

e xpe di e nt or i ne xpe di e nt , or a s pol i t i c or i mpol i -

tic . Cons i de r a tions of tha t s or t mus t, in ge ne r a l ,

be a ddr e s s e d t o t he l e gi s l a t ur e . Que s t i ons of

pol i c y de t e r mi ne d t he r e a r e c onc l ude d he r e . "

Wa t s on, s upr a a t pa ge 540. See al s o Smith v. Gor e , 728 S. W. 2d 738

a nd t he cases ci t e d t he r e i n.

The Ge ne r a l As s e mbl y ha s una mbi guous l y de c l a r e d t he publ i c

pol i c y wi t h r e ga r d t o t he f ur ni s hi ng of a l c ohol t o pe r s ons unde r

t he age of 21 as i t r e l a t e s t o "dr a m s hops . " We ar e not at l i be r t y

t o hol d ot he r wi s e . Accor di ngl y, i n t he a bs e nc e of e vi de nc e of a

s a l e , the tr i a l c our t wa s c or r e c t in di r e c ting a ve r di c t in f a vor

of t he " dr a m s hop" de f e nda nt s .

II.

Af t e r di r e c t i ng ve r di c t s f or t he dr a m s hop de f e nda nt s , t he

t r i a l c our t f ound, a s t o t he r e ma i ni ng de f e nda nt , t ha t r e a s ona bl e

mi nds c oul d r e a c h onl y one conc l us i on — t ha t La Rue wa s at l eas t

f i f t y pe r cent at f a ul t f or hi s de a t h, whe n c ompa r e d wi t h t he f a ul t

of Br e we r . We mus t di s a gr e e . Although thi s is a dmitte dl y a c l os e

que s t i on, we f i nd the t r i a l c our t s houl d ha ve a l l owe d i t t o be

de c i de d by t he j ur y.
11

 

As the pl a i ntif f poi nt s out, the f a c t s of thi s c a s e a r e ve r y

s i mila r t o t hos e i n Si l c ox v. Cof f e e , 1993 WL 350134 ( Te nn. App.

Se pt . 15, 1993) . I n Silc ox, the pl a i ntif f wa s kille d in a n

a ut omobi l e a c c i de nt a f t e r bot h he a nd t he de f e nda nt dr i ve r ha d be e n

dr i nki ng he a vi l y. The de f e nda nt ' s bl ood a l c ohol l e ve l wa s 0. 39 a nd

pl a i ntif f ' s wa s 0. 37. I d. a t **1. The c our t s t a t e d t he f ol l owi ng:

Our i nqui r y i s whe t he r vi e wi ng t he e vi de nc e i n t he

pl a i ntif f ' s f a vor , t he evi de nce can r eas ona bl y s uppor t a

c onc l us i on t ha t [ pl a i ntif f ' s ] de c i s i on to r i de with a n

i nt oxi c a t e d dr i ve r di d not a c c ount f or 50 pe r c e nt or mor e

of t he pr oxi ma t e c a us e of hi s de a t h. The r eas ona bl e ne s s

of a pl a i ntif f ' s de c i s i on t o e nc ount e r t hi s r i s k i s a

f act ua l de t e r mi na t i on t o be de t e r mi ne d by t he t r i e r of

f act .. . In the c a s e a t ba r , the jur y de t e r mi ne d tha t

[ pl a i ntif f ' s ] de a t h wa s c a us e d 40 pe r c e nt by hi s own

ne gl i ge nc e . Thi s c onc l us i on ne c e s s a r i l y i nvol ve s a

c ons i de r a t i on of t he r e a s ona bl e ne s s of [ pl a i nt i f f ' s ]

deci s i on t o r i de wi t h t he de f e nda nt . The r e i s a mpl e

e vi de nc e t o s uppor t t ha t [ pl a i nt i f f ' s ] de c i s i on t o r i de

with de f e nda nt wa s unr e a s ona bl e . We c a nnot s a y, howe ve r ,

t ha t t he e vi de nc e doe s not e s t a bl i s h a ba s i s f r om whi c h

t he jur y c oul d ha ve c onc l ude d t ha t [ pl a i nt i f f ' s ] de c i s i on

account e d for l e s s t ha n 50 pe r c e nt of t he pr oxi ma t e caus e

of hi s de a t h. Ac c or di ngl y, we f i nd no e r r or wi t h t he

t r i a l c our t ' s de ni a l of de f e nda nt ' s mot i on f or a di r e c t e d

ve r di c t a nd hi s mot i on f or a ne w t r i a l .

I d. a t **5 ( e mpha s i s a dde d; c i t a t i on omi t t e d) .

I n Silc ox, t he de f e nda nt a r gue d t ha t Si l c ox a s s ume d t he r i s k

of de a t h by r i di ng wi t h a n i nt oxi c a t e d dr i ve r a nd t hus wa s ba r r e d

from r ecove r i ng da ma ge s . De f e nda nt ci t e d Ha r ve y v. Wheel e r , 57
12

Te nn. App. 642, 423 S. W. 2d 283, 285 ( Te nn. 1967) , i n whi c h t he

c our t s a i d:

As a ge ne r a l pr opos i t i on, a gue s t - pa s s e nge r i s

pr e c l ude d from re c ove r i ng f or i nj ur i e s s us t a i ne d i n a n

a ut omobi l e a c c i de nt whe r e t he i nt oxi c a t e d c ondi t i on of

t he dr i ve r of t he a ut omobi l e i n whi c h [ t he pa s s e nge r ] wa s

r i di ng wa s a pr oxi ma t e caus e of t he acci de nt , i f t he

gue s t - pa s s e nge r kne w or s houl d ha ve known of t he dr i ve r ' s

i nt oxi c a tion a t t he t i me t he gue s t - pa s s e nge r vol unt e e r e d

t o r i de i n t he a ut omobi l e .

* * * * 

Whe t he r or not t he gue s t - pa s s e nge r i s c ont r i but or i l y

ne gl i ge nt in r i di ng i n t he a ut omobi l e of t he de f e nda nt is

not t o be de t e r mi ne d on t he ci r c ums t a nces as t he y

a ppear e d t o t he gue s t - pa s s e nge r , but is to be de t e r mi ne d

by c ompa r i ng t he gue s t pa s s e nge r ' s c onduc t wi t h t ha t of

a n or di na r i l y pr ude nt ma n unde r l i ke c i r c ums t a nc e s .

( c i t a t i on omi t t e d) . 

As in Silc ox , t he r e i s a mpl e e vi de nc e he r e s ugge s t i ng t ha t

La Rue ' s de c i s i on t o ge t on t he mot or c yc l e wa s ill- a dvi s e d a nd

ne gl i ge nt . Howe ve r , vi e wi ng a l l of t he e vi de nc e i n a l i ght mos t

f a vor a bl e to pl a i ntif f s , a s we a r e r e qui r e d to do, we c a nnot s a y

t ha t r e a s ona bl e mi nds c oul d r eac h onl y t he c onc l us i on t ha t LaRue

wa s equa l l y or mor e at f a ul t t ha n Br e we r . We agr ee t ha t t he

c onc l us i on r eache d by t he t r i a l cour t t ha t La Rue ' s f a ul t wa s equa l

t o or gr eat e r t ha n Br e we r ' s i s a r eas ona bl e conc l us i on. We cannot

s a y, howe ve r , t ha t t he r e i s not a not he r c onc l us i on t ha t c oul d be

r e a c he d by r e a s ona bl e mi nds .
13

Br e we r wa s t he ope r a t or of t he mot or c yc l e a nd a dmi t t e dl y wa s

t r a ve ling t oo f a s t at t he t i me t he acci de nt occur r e d. I t i s not

unr e a s ona bl e t o c onc l ude t ha t t he acci de nt wa s caus e d by exces s i ve

s peed r a t he r t ha n or i n a ddi t i on t o Br e we r s s t a t e of i nt oxi c a t i on.

Br e we r ' s bl ood a l c ohol c ont e nt wa s r oughl y t wi c e t ha t of LaRue ' s .

I n the f i na l a na l ys i s , a s the Silc ox c our t not e d, c ompa r a t i ve f a ul t

i s a que s t i on of f a c t wi t hi n t he j ur y' s pr ovi nc e , whi c h s houl d not

lightly be i nva de d by t he t r i a l c our t . We do not me a n t o impl y in

a ny f a s hi on t ha t the tr i a l c our t ' s a c t i on ga ve l i ght c ons i de r a t i on

t o t he evi de nce or a ny ot he r f a c e t of t he case. We ar e of t he

opi ni on t ha t , unde r al l t he ci r c ums t a nces of t hi s cas e , t he

que s t i on of t he de gr e e of f a ul t be t we e n LaRue a nd Br e we r s houl d

ha ve be e n s ubmi t t e d t o t he j ur y.

The c a s e s c i t e d a nd r e l i e d upon by Br e we r , Wa tts v. Robe r t s on

Count y, 1994 WL 706676 ( Te nn. App. De c . 21, 1994) , Ca r r v. Oz bur nHe sse y St or a ge Co. , 1996 WL 383295 ( Te nn. App. J ul y 10, 1996) , a nd

Es t a t e of Gunt e r v. Smith, 1996 WL 283069 ( Te nn. App. Ma y 30,

1996) , a r e c l e a r l y di s t i ngui s ha bl e on t he i r f a c t s f r om t hi s c a s e .

I n Wa tts , the pl a i ntif f s , p a s s e nge r s in a mot or ve hi c l e , br ought

s ui t f or da ma ge s unde r t he pr ovi s i ons of t he Gove r nme nt Tor t

Li a bility Ac t , s e e ki ng t o r e c ove r da ma ge s f or t he i r i nj ur i e s . The

c a s e wa s t r i e d a t a be nc h t r i a l a nd t he c our t f ound t he i s s ue s i n

f a vor of t he de f e nda nt . Spe c i f i c a l l y, t he c our t f ound t ha t t he

pa s s e nge r s we r e a s knowl e dge a bl e a bout t he c ondi t i ons of t he
14

r oa dwa y, br i dge a nd we a t he r c ondi t i ons a s t he dr i ve r . Fa ul t wa s

a ppor t i one d a nd a s be t we e n t he pl a i nt i f f s a nd t he de f e nda nt, th e

c our t de t e r mi ne d tha t the pl a i ntif f ' s f a ul t exceede d t ha t of t he

de f e nda nt . Thi s c our t i n a ddr e s s i ng t he i s s ue s t a t e d:

The Tr i a l J udge di d not e r r one ous l y a ppl y t he l a w as

t o t he dut y of a pa s s e nge r unde r t he f a c t s f ound by hi m.

Pa s s e nge r s i n mot or ve hi c l e s ha ve a dut y t o e xe r c i s e

r eas ona bl e ca r e for t he i r own s a f e t y. Ma ns f i e l d v.

Col oni a l Fr e i ght Sys t e ms , Te nn. App. 1993, 862 S. W. 2d

527. I t i s ne gl i ge nce f or a pa s s e nge r t o vol unt a r i l y

c ont i nue a s s uc h wi t h knowl e dge of c ondi t i ons of unr e a -

s ona bl e da nge r . Ta l bot v. Ta yl or , 184 Te nn. 428, 201

S. W. 2d 1 ( 1947) . A pa s s e nge r doe s not ha ve t he s a me

dut i e s a s t he dr i ve r of a ve hi c l e , but i s not wi t hout

r e s pons i bility f or hi s or he r own s a f e t y. Ha r r i s on v.

Pittma n, Te nn. 1976, 534 S. W. 2d 311.

We ha ve no a r gume nt wi t h t he pr opos i t i on s e t out i n Wa tts . I t

i s impor t a nt to not e tha t in Wa tts , howe ve r , t ha t t he f i ndi ngs of

f a ul t we r e ma de by t he t r i e r of f a c t a nd i nvol ve d t he c r e di bi l i t y

of wi t ne s s e s . Suc h i s not t he case her e .

Ca r r v. Oz bur n- He sse y St or a ge Co. , invol ve d a c ollis i on

be t ween a n a ut omobi l e a nd a t r uc k. The de f e nda nt move d for s umma r y

j udgme nt . The c our t de t e r mi ne d t ha t t he r e we r e no ge nui ne i s s ue s

of ma t e r i a l f a c t a nd s us t a i ne d t he mot i on f or s umma r y j udgme nt ,

f i ndi ng f r om t he undi s put e d f a c t s t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f wa s , a s a

ma tte r of la w, mor e tha n 50% a t f a ult. We do not be lie ve tha t in
15

t hi s c a s e t he f a c t s be f or e t he c our t a r e undi s put e d t o t he e xt e nt

t ha t a j udgme nt can be ma de as a ma t t e r of l a w.

I n Es t a t e of Gunt e r v. Smith, thi s c our t , i n es s e nce,

de t e r mi ne d t ha t f r om t he undi s put e d e vi de nc e t he r e wa s no ne gl i -

ge nc e on t he pa r t of t he pl a i nt i f f . The c our t s t a t e d:

I n the f i na l a na l ys i s , if the a ppe lla nt is e ntitle d

t o r e c ove r f or t he de a t h of t he de c e de nt unde r t he

c i r c ums t a nces pr e s e nt he r e , s uc h r ecove r y mus t necess a r -

ily be ba s e d on a n i nf e r e nc e t ha t t he de f e nda nt s houl d

ha ve s een t he decede nt be f or e t he col l i s i on occur r e d. We

do not be l i e ve t ha t act i ona bl e ne gl i ge nce can be i nf e r r e d

f r om "t he me r e f act of t he occur r e nce of i nj ur y al one . "

Wi l l i a ms v. J or da n, 208 Te nn. 456, 346 S. W. 2d 583, 586

( Te nn. App. 1961) . Ea t on v. Mc La i n, 891 S. W. 2d 587, 590

( Te nn. 1994) hol ds t ha t t he doc t r i ne of c ompa r a t i ve

f a ult, Mc I nt yr e v. Ba l e ntine , 833 S. W. 2d 52 ( Te nn. 1992)

doe s not a l t e r t he s t a nda r ds whi c h gove r n a s s e s s me nt of

e vi de nc e ba s e d upon t he ne gl i ge nc e of a pl a i nt i f f , a nd we

t hi nk the tr i a l judge c or r e c tly he l d t ha t r eas ona bl e

mi nds c oul d not di f f e r a s t o t he c onc l us i on t o be dr a wn

i n a light mos t f a vor a bl e t o the pl a i ntif f tha t the

ne gl i ge nce of t he deceased wa s equa l t o or gr eat e r t ha n

a ny i nf e r e nt i a l ne gl i ge nc e of t he de f e nda nt .

We do not be l i e ve t ha t t he a ut hor i t i e s c i t e d by t he de f e nda nt s

ha ve a ny a ppl i c a t i on t o t he i s s ue s unde r c ons i de r a t i on he r e . He r e ,

i t i s r e a s ona bl e t o c onc l ude t ha t mor e pr oba bl e t ha n not bot h

pa r tie s we r e ne gl i ge nt . Suf f i c i e nt doubt e xi s t s , howe ve r , t o

r e qui r e t he c a s e t o be s ubmi t t e d t o t he j ur y.

Ac c or di ngl y, we r e ve r s e the a c tion of the tr i a l c our t in

di r e c ting a ve r di c t a ga i ns t t he pl a i nt i f f s a nd i n f a vor of t he
16

de f e nda nt , Br e we r . The tr i a l c our t is a f f i r me d in a ll ot he r

r e s pect s .

I n our di s c r e t i on cos t s of t hi s appeal ar e as s e s s e d equa l l y

be t ween t he pl a i nt i f f s a nd t he de f e nda nt , Br e we r . We r e ma nd t he

cas e t o t he t r i a l c our t f or a ne w t r i a l a s t o t he de f e nda nt ,

Br e we r .

_____________________________

 Don T. Mc Mur r a y, J udge

___________________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, Pr e s i di ng J udge

___________________________________

Cha r l e s D. Sus a no, J r . , J udge
FILED

October 9, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON

HORACE A. LaRUE a nd CARLA )

LaRUE, Pa r e nt s a nd ne xt of ki n )

of RANDALL CHARLES L aRUE, )

Deceased )

)

Pl a i ntif f s - Appe lla nt s )

 )

) 

v. ) KNOX COUNTY

 ) 03A01- 9702- CV- 00053

 )

1817 LAKE I NCORPORATED, d/ b/ a )

BONKERS, HOWARD R. TANNENBAUM, )

RI CKY CHAMBERS, ROBERT ARCHER, )

a nd DANNY G. BREWER )

)

De f e nda nt s - Appe l l ees )

 CONCURRI NG OPI NI ON

 Godda r d, P. J .

I c onc ur i n J udge Mc Murra y' s r e ve r s a l of t he Tr i a l

Cour t ' s di s mi s s a l of t he c a s e a ga i ns t t he ope r a t or of t he mot or c yc l e , Mr . Br e we r , f or t he r e a s ons s t a t e d t he r e i n, a nd i n hi s

a ffi r ma nc e of the di s mi s s a l a s to the " dr a m s hop" De f e nda nt s . I

ba s e my c onc ur r e nc e a s t o t he l a t t e r upon T. C. A. 57- 10- 101, whi c h
1 T.C.A. 57-4-203(b), which the complaint alleges the "dram shop"

Defendants violated, provides the following:

(b) SALES TO MINORS PROHIBITED. (1) Any licensee or other

person who sells, furnishes, disposes of, gives, or causes to be

sold, furnished, disposed of, or given, any alcoholic beverage to

any person under twenty-one (21) years of age is guilty of a Class

A misdemeanor. 

18

pr ovi de s t ha t c ons umi ng r a t he r t ha n f ur ni s hi ng1 al c ohol i c be ve r a ge s

i s t he pr oxi ma t e c a us e of i nj ur i e s i nf l i c t e d by a n i nt oxi c a t e d

pe r s on.

I n r e a c hi ng t hi s c onc l us i on I not e t ha t no c ons t i t ut i ona l

a t t a c k is le ve l e d a s to the s t a t ut e a nd, f ur t he r , 

t ha t the i mpor t of T. C. A. 57- 10- 102 i s not e nt i r e l y c l e a r . My

r eadi ng of bot h Code Se c t i ons , howe ve r , pe r s ua de s me t ha t T. C. A.

57- 10- 102 i s i nt e nde d a s a n e xc e pt i on t o 57- 10- 101 a nd a l l ows

r ecove r y i f t he r e qui r e me nt s cont a i ne d t he r e i n ar e me t . Whi l e i t

s eems a noma l ous t o me t ha t t he Le gi s l a t ur e woul d i ns ul a t e a n

a l c ohol i c di s pe ns i ng e s t a blis hme nt f r om lia bility whe n t he s pi r i t s

a r e gi ve n a wa y t o t hos e unde r 21 or i nt oxi c a t e d, a s oppos e d t o

be i ng s ol d, I c onc l ude t ha t unde r t he c l e a r l a ngua ge of T. C. A. 57-

10- 101 t he a c t s of t he " dr a m s hop" De f e nda nt s , who f ur ni s he d but

di d not s e l l t he i nt oxi c a t i ng be ve r a ge , a r e not t he pr oxi ma t e c a us e

of t he deat h of Mr . La Rue , whi c h i s necess a r y t o cas t t he m i n

j udgme nt .

_______________________________

Hous t on M. Godda r d, P. J .
19
20

FILED

October 9, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

HORACE A. LaRUE and CARLA LaRUE,) C/A NO. 03A01-9702-CV-00053

Parents and next of kin of )

RANDALL CHARLES LaRUE, deceased,)

 )

Plaintiffs-Appellants,)

 )

 )

 )

 ) APPEAL AS OF RIGHT FROM THE

v. ) KNOX COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

 )

 )

 )

1817 LAKE INCORPORATED, d/b/a )

BONKERS, HOWARD R. TANNENBAUM, )

RICKY CHAMBERS, ROBERT ARCHER, )

and DANNY G. BREWER, )

 ) HON. WHEELER A. ROSENBALM

Defendants-Appellees. ) JUDGE

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur completely in Judge McMurray’s holding that the

dram shop defendants were entitled to a directed verdict. I also

agree with his reasoning in support of that holding. As to the

defendant Brewer, I agree that, based upon the plaintiffs’ proof,

a jury could reasonably find that any negligence on the part of the

deceased was less than the negligence of Brewer. Therefore, I

agree that the plaintiffs’ claim against Brewer must be remanded

for a new trial. My concurrence is limited to these statements.

__________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.