## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### Ju n e28,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt PU BL I SH UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
D A N R O G E R S, i ndi vi dual l yand as P e rso n a l R e p re se n tativ e o f th e E sta te o f Kr y s t l e Ro g e r s , d e c e a s e d ; S HERRI R O G E R S, i ndi vi dual l yand as Per s onal R e p re se n tativ e o f

th e E sta te o f

K ry stle Ro g e r s , d e c e a s e d ; J AM E S BR AD DOO LE Y; TI F F ANY HARPE R; ANN A CHRI S TI NE HARP ER,

P l ai nti ffs - A pp el l ants , v. N o. 06- 6141 A N H E U S E R -B U S C H , IN C ., a M i s s o u r i c o rp o r a t i o n ; ANH EUS ERB U SC H I N C . , doi ng bus i nes s as A nheus er - B us ch Sal es of Tul s a,

D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees. AP P EA L F ROM THE UNI TE D S TA TE S DI S TR I CT COURT F O R T H E WE S T E R N D I S T R I C T O F O K L A H O MA

( D. C. NO . 0 4 - CV- 1 4 6 - L) R ober tW . N el s on ( T hom as A . Paruol o, w i th hi m on the br i ef) , of W hi t t en, Ne l s o n , M c Gu i r e , Te r r y& Ro s e l i u s , Ok l a h o ma Ci ty , Ok l a h o ma ; ( Ga ryC. B achman, St ephen D . B achman, B ry an G . G arr et t , H ol l ow ay , D obs on & B achm an, P . C . , O klahom a C i t y , O klahom a, w i th h i m on t he b ri ef), for Plai nti ffs - A pp el l ants . Ri c h a r d C. Fo r d , Cr o we & D u n l e v y , Okl a h o ma Ci ty , Okl a h o ma , ( J a me s L. K i ncai d, C r ow e & D unl evy , T ul s a, O kl ahoma, w i th hi m on the br i ef) , for D efen dan t s - A pp el l ees.-2-

B efo re B RI S CO E , HA RTZ , and GORS UCH , C i rcui tJudg es. HA RTZ , C i r cui tJ udge. O n M ay4, 2002, K r y s t l e R oger s w as ki l l ed and he rpas s enger s — J ames B r ad D ool ey , T i ffa nyH arper , and A nna C hr i s t i ne H arper— w er e i nj ur ed w hen her v e h ic le c o llid e d w ith o n e d ri v e n b yR a n d a ll A lb ri g h t, I II , w h o w a s in to x ic a te d . D an and Sherr i R oger s ( K r y s t l e’ s par ent s and the per s onal r epr es ent at i ves of her es t at e) and the pas s enger s ( col l ect i vel y , Pl ai nt i ffs ) fi l ed s ui ton February12, 2 0 0 4 , in th e W e s te rn D is tr ic t o f O k la h o m a a g a in s t A n h e u s e r- B u s c h , In c ., a M i s s our i corpor at i on, and A nheus er - B us ch, I nc. d/b/ a A nheus er - B us ch Sal es of T u ls a (w h ic h w ill b e re fe rr e d to in d iv id u a lly a n d c o lle c tiv e ly as A n h e u s e r- B u s c h ). P lain tiffs a lleg e d th a t A n h e u se r-B u sc h w a s lia b le u n d e r n e g lig e n c e a n d w ro n g f u ld e a th c a u se s o f

a c tio n b e c a u se its e m p lo y e e s h a d se rv e d b e e r to A lb rig h t d e sp ite hi s not i cea bl e i nt oxi cat i on atan eve ntt hati ts pons or ed and forw hi ch i ts uppl i ed b e e r. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt g ra n te d s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t fo r A n h e u s e r- B u s c h . P l a i n t i ffs a p p e a l . W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S . C. § 1 2 9 1 a n d a ffi r m. I . BA CKGROUND A . T he C al f

F ry T h e T u m b lew ee d b ar, w h ich c aters to y o u n g ad u lt s, is i n S ti ll w ater, O kl ahoma, aboutt en mi l es fr om O kl ahoma St at e U ni ver s i ty . E ach y ear-3-

T um bl ew eed hos t s a countr y - m us i c conc er tcal l ed the C al f Fr y . A nheus er - B us ch, t he br ew erof B udw ei s erbeer s , pai d $7500 t o s pons orthe C al f Fr yhel d on M ay3- 4, 2002. T he “Concer tSponsor s hi p A gr eement ” ( the A gr eement ) betw een A nheus er - B us ch and the Pr om ot er , T ryA d Pr om ot i ons and J enni ferH as el , dat ed A pr i l 19, 2002, m akes A nheus er - B us ch the “e xcl us i ve t i t l e s pons orand the e x c lu siv e a lco h o l an d n o n -a lco h o l m a lt b e v e ra g e sp o n so r” o f th e e v e n t. A p lt. A pp. V ol . I at64. U ndert he A gr eement t he Pr om ot erpr om i s ed t o s pend atl eas t$15, 000 publ i ci zi ng t he eve nt , and adve r t i s i ng m at er i al s w er e t o cont ai n s uch s l ogans as “B udw ei s erK i ng of B eer s Pr es ent s . ” Id . V ol . I I at402. A nheus er - B us ch r et ai ned t he r i ghtt o appr ove “[ a] l l publ i c new s m edi a announc ement s pr epar ed by P ro m o te r c o n c e rn in g [ A n h e u s e r- B u s c h ’s ] s p o n s o rs h ip ” o f th e e v e n t, id . V ol . I at 65, and i tr es erved the r i ghtt o t erm i nat e the A gr eementi f the Pr om ot eroranyof t he eve nt ’ s per form er s “comm i t s an ac torbecomes i nvol ved i n a s i tuat i on or occurr ence w hi ch, i n [A nheus er - B us ch’ s ] r eas onabl e and good fai th opi ni on, t end s t o p rovok e, shock or offen d the com m un i tyor anysi zeable group o r cl ass th e re o f, o r i f

[ a p e rfo rm e r] p u b lic ly d is p a ra g e s [ A n h e u s e r- B u s c h ] o r i ts p ro d u c ts ,” i d. a t 6 6 . N u m e ro u s s ig n s a t th e e v e n t a d v e rt is e d B u d w e is e r p ro d u c ts . T um bl ew eed a ppar ent l yr eques t ed thatA nheus er - B us ch al s o hang s i gns t hat pr ovi ded i nform at i on aboutpr i ci ng and di r ect i ons t o food, and A nheus er - B us ch m ayhave pr ovi ded thes e s i gns fr ee of char ge.-4-

I n t he A gr eementt he Pr om ot erpr om i s ed thateac h componenteventof the C a lf F ryw o u ld b e a tten d e d b ya t lea st 1 5 0 0 p e o p le a n d w o u ld h a v e “ a d e q u a te s ecur i t yand cr ow d contr ol arr angement s [and be ] conduct ed i n a mannerthat does notr es ul ti n i nj ur yt o per s ons ordamage t o pr operty . ” Id. at65. A l s o, the Pr om ot erw arr ant ed thatnei t heri t“noranyper s on, fi r m orcompanyaff i l i at ed w i t h orot herw i s e r el at ed t o [i t ] i s a r et ai l erof al cohol bever ages and none of t hem has a nyow ner s hi p i nt er es t , di r ect l yori ndi r ect l y , i n anyal cohol bever age r et ai l l i cens e. ” Id. at 68 . T h e A g ree m en t exp li cit lyaim ed to se p ara te A n h eu serB us ch’ s s pons or s hi p and underw r i t i ng of adve r t i s i ng cos t s fr om i t s pr ovi s i on of a lco h o l. T h e P ro m o ter w a rra n ted th a t [t ] her e i s no agr eementorunder s t andi ng betw een [ A nheus er - B us ch] and P rom otert hat, as consi derat i on for [A nh euser- B usch’s] pu rchase of adve r t i s i ng undert hi s A gr eement , ei therPr om ot eroranyper s on, firm o r c o m p a n ya ffili a ted w ith o r o th e rw ise re late d to P ro m o ter w ill r equi r e anyal cohol bever age r et ai l l i cens ee t o pur chas e anyal cohol b ev era g e p rod u ce d , so ld o r offe red fo r sale b y[A n h eu ser-B u sch ]. Id
. Si m i l ar l y , A nheus er - B us ch w arr ant ed thati t“ha[ d] no agr eementw i th any al cohol bever age l i cens ee r el at ed t o orr es pect i ng thi s A gr eement . ” Id. a t 6 9 . A n o th e r w a rra n tyb yth e P ro m o ter w a s th a t “[ t]h e rig h ts p u rc h a se d u n d e r th is A g re e m e n t ar e b e in g p u rc h a se d a t a r a te n o h ig h e r th a n th a t at w h ich su c h rig h ts ar e ava i l abl e t o ot herpr os pect i ve pur chas er s . ” Id. In a d d iti o n to sp o n so rin g th e C a lf F ry , A n h e u se r-B u sc h p ro v id e d its pr oduct s att he eve nt . B eca us e Tum bl ew eed l acke d the equi pm entt o s erve dr aft-5-

beer , A nheus er - B us ch br ought t rucks t o keep ke gs of bee rr efr i ger at ed and r an d raf t l ines fro m the k eg s to the p o ints of sale. It s em p loy ee s w ere o n sit e to w o rk w ith th e b e e r re taile rs to e n su re th a t th e b e e r’s d e liv e ryw a s s u c c e ss f u l an d to t r oubl es hootanypr obl ems thatar os e. A n A nheus er - B us ch empl oy ee a dm i t t ed at hi s depos i t i on t hati thad the “r es pons i bi l i tyt o m ake s ur e thatt he bee rw as pr oper l ys uppl i ed. ” Id . at202. A nheus er - B us ch’ s s t aff i ns truct ed Tum bl ew eed empl oy ees on t he pr operoper at i on of the dr aftequi pm ent , butno A nheus er - B us ch empl oy ee pour ed ors erved bee rt o r et ai l cus t om er s dur i ng th e e v e n t. A l though beerfr om ot herbr ew er s w as avai l abl e att he C al f Fr y , A nheus er - B us ch w as t he “pr edomi nant ” pr ovi derof bee ratt he eve nt , A pl t . A pp. V ol . I I at481, and w as t he onl ypr ovi dert hathad bee rt rucks ons i t e. T u m b le w e e d p a id A n h e u s e r- B u s c h fo r e a c h k e g th a t w a s a c tu a lly ta p p e d . T um bl ew eed s erved s om e bee rw i thoutchar ge t o patr ons att he eve nt , buti thad pur chas ed thi s beerfr om A nheus er - B us ch. A tl eas tone A nheus er - B us ch e m p l o ye e r e c e i v e d a c o m m i s s i o n o n t h e a m o u n to f b e e rs o l d a tt h e C a l f

F ry. B . C ourt P roce edi ngs T he C om pl ai ntal l eged a w r ongful - death caus e of a ct i on on behal f of K r y s t l e R oger s ’ s es t at e and c om m on- l aw negl i gence caus es of ac t i on on behal f of the o ther P lai n ti ffs. T h e c au ses o f a cti o n b o th rested o n A n h eu ser-B u sch ’s all eg ed n eg li g en ce . M o re sp ec ifi ca ll y , the C o m p lai n t al lege d that K ry stl e R o g ers w a s k i l l e d a n d h e rp a s s e n g e r s i nj u r e d b y A l b r i g h ta s h e w a s l e a v i n g t h e C a l f F r y;-6-

t hatA nheus er - B us ch, i n cos pons or i ng the C al f Fr yw i th T um bl ew eed a nd

“ th ro u g h [ a ] jo in t v e n tu re w ith T u m b lew e e d [ ],” h a d o ffe re d f re e b e e r to A lb rig h t, A pl t . A pp. V ol . I at17; t hatA nheus er - B us ch cont i nued t o s erve A l br i ghtaft erhe h a d b e c o m e n o tice a b lyin to x ica ted ; an d th a t A lb rig h t th e n c ra sh e d in to M s. R og ers ’ vehi cl e “[a]s a di rectand proxim at e res ultof [ A nh euser- B usch’s] negl i gence , ” i d. P l ai nti ffs soug ht com pen sat oryand pu nit i ve d am ages. A nheus er - B us ch moved fors um m aryj udgm enton the gr ound t hati tw as notl i abl e fori nj ur i es caus ed byA l br i ghtbeca us e i tw as m er el ya manufactur er a n d w h o le s a le r o f

b e e r a n d d id n o t s e rv e b e e r t o A lb ri g h t. It f u rth e r a rg u e d th a t it w as nota partof anyj oi ntventur e r el at ed t o the eve nt . I tdi d notcont es tt hat A l br i ghtw as s erved onl yA nheus er - B us ch bee r , t hathe w as vi s i bl yi nt oxi cat ed w h e n se rv e d , o r th a t h e c a u se d th e a c c id e n t. Pl ai nt i ffs ’ r es pons es t o A nheus er - B us ch’ s m ot i on s t at ed tw o theor i es of neg l i gen ce. T he fir stt heo ryw as that A nh euser- B usch w as negli gen tper se becau se i tviol at ed an O klahom a st atute pr oh i bit i ng any“ho l der of a ret ai l l i cense orperm i t ” fr om s el l i ng beert o an i nt oxi cat ed per s on, O k la . S ta t. tit. 3 7 , § 2 4 7 . U n d e r O k lah o m a n e g lig e n c e -p e r-s e d o c trin e , o n e w h o v io late s a sta tu te is liab le fo r an injuryw h en “(1 ) th e inju ry[w as] c au sed b ythe v iolati o n , (2) the injury [w as ] of a type i nt ended t o be pr event ed byt he or di nance , and ( 3) t he i nj ur ed par t y[w as ] one of the cl as s i nt ended t o be pr ot ect ed byt he s t atut e. ” O hio C as. Ins . C o. v. Todd, 813 P. 2d 508, 510 ( O kl a. 1991) . T he s econd theoryw as t hat-7-

A nheus er - B us ch w as l i abl e underO kl ahoma’ s comm on- l aw rul e that“dr am sh o p s”— retail sell ers o f a lcoh o l— m ayn o t serve b ee r t o intox icated p atron s. In addi t i on, Pl ai nt i ffs ar gued thatA nheus er - B us ch and Tum bl ew eed w er e j oi nt ventur er s i n conduct i ng t he C al f Fr y . ( Pl ai nt i ffs cont ended thatA nheus er - B us ch and Tum bl ew eed w er e the “true s i gnat or i es and part i es , ” A pl t . A pp. V ol . I I at 325, t o t he A gr eement

— t hati s , t hatT um bl ew eed i t s el f w as s ubs t ant i al l yi dent i cal to the P rom o ter. W e w il l assu m e w ith o u t dec iding that this co n tention is co rrect. ) Pl ai nt i ffs di d notexpl ai n t he r el evanc e of the j oi nt - ventur e cont ent i on, but a p p a re n tlyth e th e o ryw a s th a t A n h e u se r-B u sc h w o u ld b e liab le if its jo in tven turerw as. T he d i stri ctcou rtgrant ed A nh euser- B usch’s m oti on . Itheld that Pl ai nti ffs’ negl i gence - per - s e ar gum ent“fa i l [s ] fort he s i m pl e r eas on thats ect i on 247 appl i es onl yt o hol der s of r et ai l l i cens es orperm i t s and i ti s undi s put ed thatdefe ndant s do nothol d a re ta illice n se o r p e rm it . . . . In d e e d , O k lah o m a law sp e c ifica lly p ro h ib its th e iro b ta in in g s u c h lic e n s e s . See 3 7 [ O k la. S tat.] § 2 3 1 (A )(1 ).” A p lt. A p p . a t5 6 1

– 6 2 ( O r d e r , M a r . 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 ) . W i th r e g a r d t o P l a i n t i ffs ’ o r d i n a rynegl i gence cl ai m , t he courthel d that“[n] ei therO kl ahoma cour t s nort he O kl ahoma l egi s l atur e has ext ended dr am shop l i abi l i tyt o w hol es al er s and m anufa ctur er s of . . . beer . ” Id
. at 56 2 . A n d o n the jo int- v en ture issu e the co u rt hel d t hatPl ai nt i ffs had notes t abl i s hed thatA nheus er - B us ch and Tum bl ew eed s h a re d p ro fits , a n e c e s s a ry e le m e n t o f a jo in t v e n tu re u n d e r O k la h o m a la w .-8-

I ns t ead, i ts ai d, t he r el at i ons hi p w as thatbetw een a s uppl i erand a pur chas er beca us e “[ P] l ai nt i ffs admi tt hatt he pr i ce a tw hi ch [A nheus er - B us ch] s ol d . . . beer t o T um bl ew eed w as t he s ame pr i ce a vai l abl e t o al l r et ai l er s , ” and A nheus er - B us ch di d nots har e i n anyot herr ece i pt s fr om the eve nt . A pl t . A pp. V ol . I I at560 (O rd e r, M a r. 1 5 , 2 0 0 6 ). II. A N A L Y S IS “[ S ]um m aryjud g m en t i s ap p rop ri ate if ‘the p lead ing s, d ep o sit ion s, an sw ers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , a n d a d m i s s i o n s o n fi l e , t o g e th e rw i th t h e a ffi d a v i t s , i f a n y, s how t hatt her e i s no genui ne i s s ue as t o anym at er i al fac tand thatt he movi ng par t yi s ent i t l ed t o a j udgm entas a mat t erof l aw . ’ ” R ei nhar tv. Li ncoln C ount y, 4 8 2 F . 3 d 1 2 2 5 , 1 2 2 8

– 2 9 ( 1 0 t h C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o t i n g F e d . R . C i v . P . 5 6 ( c ) ) . “ We rev iew su m m aryjud g m en t ord ers d e n o v o an d m ayaffirm the d istri ct co u rt ’s gr antof s um m aryj udgm enton anygr ounds adequa t el ypr es ent ed bel ow . ” Id. at 1228 ( br acke t s and i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed) . “R evi ew of a di s tr i ct cou rt ’s determ i nati on s of st at e l aw i n a d i versi tycase i s de novo . ” B oyd Rosene & Ass ocs . , Inc. v. Kan. Mun. G as A gency , 1 7 4 F .3 d 1 1 1 5 , 1 1 1 8 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). W e a ffir m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ’s g ra n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t to A n h e u s e r- B u s c h . Pl ai nt i ffs have notpr es ent ed evi dence t hatcoul d s us t ai n thei ral l egat i ons t hat A n h eu ser-B u sch v iolated O k la. S tat . ti t. 3 7 , § 2 4 7 , is l iable fo r ord inary negl i gence , orw as i n a j oi ntventur e w i th T um bl ew eed.-9-

A . N egl i gence of

A nheuser - B usc h 1. N egl i gence Per Se P lain tiffs c o n ten d th a t A n h e u se r-B u sc h w a s n e g lig e n t p e r se b e c a u se it viol at ed O kla. S t at . t i t . 37 , § 2 47 , w hich st at es: N o hol derof a r et ai l l i cens e orperm i tt o s el l . . . beer , oran empl oy ee or a g e n to f a h o l d e ro f

s u c h a l i c e n s e o rp e r m i t , s h a l l k n o w i n g l y, w i l l f u l l y, a n d w a n to n ly se ll, d e liv e r o r f u rn is h . . . b e e r t o a n in to x ic a te d p e rs o n . . . . P l ai nti ffs assertt hat the st atute appl i es t o A nh euser- B usch b ecause itho l ds a

“ p e rm it. ” A lth o u g h A n h e u se r-B u sc h ’s lic e n se is a w h o les a ler ’s lic e n se , n o t a r et ai l er ’ s , Pl ai nt i ffs s ayt hatt he w or d “r et ai l ” i n § 247 m o d ifie s o n ly “l ic e n s e ,” n o t “ p e rm it to s e ll . . . b e e r.” W e ar e s kept i cal of Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cons truct i on of the s t atut e; b u t ev e n if Pl ai nt i ffs ar e corr ectr egar di ng t he r eac h of the adj ect i ve “r et ai l ” i n the t extof the sta tu te, th e ir a rg u m e n t fa ils fo r a se p a ra te r e a so n : A n h e u se r-B u sc h d id n o t “s e ll, del i verorfurni s h . . . beert o an i nt oxi cat ed per s on. ” N o A nheus er - B us ch e m p lo y e e so ld b e e r to a c o n su m e r in a re tail c a p a c ity , se rv e d a n yin d iv id u a l re tail c u s to m e r, o r o th e rw is e m a d e d e c is io n s a b o u t w h ic h c u s to m e rs w e re to b e s e rv e d . A l t hough i ti s undi s put ed thatA nheus er - B us ch s ol d, del i ver ed, and furni s hed bee r att he eve nt , i ti s equal l yundi s put ed thati ts ol d, del i ver ed, and furni s hed thi s beer to T u m b le w e e d , n o t “ to a n in to x ic a te d p e rs o n .”-10- 2. O rdi nary N egl i gence Pl ai nt i ffs cont end thatA nheus er - B us ch i s l i abl e underO kl ahoma com m on l aw r egar dl es s of w hetheri tvi ol at ed § 247. B uts et t l ed O kl ahoma l aw i s t o the contr ary . I n Sanders v. C r os s t ow n Market, Inc. , 850 P. 2d 1061 ( O kl a. 1993) , t he O kl ahoma Supre m e C our tdecl i ned t o i m pos e l i abi l i tyon a gr ocerys t or e that k n o w in g lyso ld liq u o r to a m in o r, w h o late r se rv e d a lco h o l to th e p lain tiff, w h o in tur n w as i nvol ved i n an aut om obi l e ac ci dent . T he gr ocerys t or e “ha d no o b lig a tio n to a n ticip a te” th e inju rie s to th e p lain tiff f ro m th e ir h a v in g so ld b e e r to a m in o r. Id. at1064. T he courtexpl ai ned thati thad r ecogni zed onl ya l i m i t ed exce pt i on t o t he tr adi t i onal comm on- l aw rul e thatt hos e w ho s el l al cohol ar e not liab le fo r th e h a rm s c a u se d b yth o se w h o d rin k it: I n B r igance [ v. VelvetD ove Res taur ant, Inc. , 725 P. 2d 300 ( O kl a. 1 9 8 6 )] w e c re a ted a n a rro w e x c e p tio n to th e c o m m o n law ru le th a t a t avern keepe rw ho s el l s al cohol t o a cus t om eri s notl i abl e for i nj ur i es r es ul t i ng fr om t he cus t om er ’ s drunkennes s . I n B r igance , a r es t aur antow ners ol d al cohol foron pr emi s es cons um pt i on t o a not i cea bl yi nt oxi cat ed cus t om er . A ft erl eavi ng the r es t aur ant , t he c u sto m e r d ro v e h is c a r w h ile d ru n k , w re c k e d it, a n d a p a ss e n g e r in hi s carw as i nj ur ed. W e modi fi ed the comm on l aw rul e i n B r igance . W e di d notabr ogat e i t . W e cr eat ed a c aus e of a ct i on fort he i nnocent i nj ur ed pas s engeragai ns tthe r es t aur antow ner . O urhol di ng w entno fu rth er. Sa nd ers , 8 5 0 P .2 d a t 1 0 6 2 ; see also Todd , 813 P. 2d 508 ( r efus i ng t o ext end B r igance t o c o v e ri nj u r i e s s u ffe r e d b yi n t o x i c a t e d a d u l td r i v e rh i ms e l f ) . Of p a rt ic u la r r e le v a n c e to th is c a s e , Sa nd ers e n d o rse d th e p ro p o sitio n th a t “‘ liab ili ty sh o u ld n o t b e e x ten d e d to o n e w h o a c ts o n lya s a c o n d u it i n p ro v id in g a lco h o l to-11-

t hos e w ho di r ect l ys erve i tt o ot her s . ’ ” 850 P. 2d at1064 ( quot i ng Wi enerv. G a m m a P h i C h ap tero f A lp h a Ta u O m eg a Fra ter n ity , 4 8 5 P . 2 d 1 8 , 2 2 (O r. 1 9 7 1 )). A nheus er - B us ch di d nots erve al cohol i c beve r ages t o an i nt oxi cat ed per s on, or t o anycons um erfort hatm at t er . I tdi d notm ake de ci s i ons aboutw hi ch patr ons to se rv e o r h o w m u c h a lco h o l to se rv e , an d d id n o t re q u ire T u m b lew e e d to se ll al cohol i c beve r ages . I tw as m er el ya s uppl i ert o a r et ai l er . L i ke a typi cal s uppl i er , i tdi d notdi r ectT um bl ew eed’ s r et ai l deci s i ons , des pi t e i t s pr es ence at t he s i t e of the C al f Fr yand i t s s uppor tof oper at i ons on w hi ch s al es of bee r depende d. Pl ai nt i ffs ar e corr ectthatA nheus er - B us ch’ s s t atus as a manufactur er a n d w h o les a ler o f

b e e r d o e s n o t im m u n ize it fro m liab ili tyre g a rd les s o f its act i ons , butt he fa ctr emai ns t hatal though A nheus er - B us ch s uppl i ed al cohol for th e e v e n t, i t d id n o t se rv e a lco h o l t o ret ailcon sum ers . T he w hol es al er - r et ai l erconnec t i on betw een A nheus er - B us ch and T u m b le w e e d w a s n o t e n o u g h to im p o s e c o m m o n -l a w lia b ility o n A n h e u s e r- B u s c h . I n P at e v. A l i an , 4 9 P .3 d 8 5 (O k la. C iv . A p p . 2 0 0 2 ), th e O k lah o m a C o u rt o f C iv il A ppeal s hel d t hateven a fr anchi s or - fr anchi s ee r el at i ons hi p di d nots uffi ce: [ I ] tma yb e t ru e t h a tP i z z a I n n , I n c . , [ th e f r a n c h i s o r ] h a d s o me e c o n o m ic g a in f

ro m th e sa le o f

a lco h o l th a t itp e rm itt e d a t th is f ra n c h ise d re sta u ra n t, bu t itd id n o t re q u ire its f ra n c h ise e s to se ll i nt oxi cat i ng bever ages , di d notm ai nt ai n anycontr ol overs ervi ce of s uch beve r ages , and i tw as concl us i vel yes t abl i s hed thatPi zza I nn, Inc . , d id n o t ho ld an alco h o li c b ev era g e li ce n se. P lai n ti ff ’s a d m iss io n s . . . c lea rlye sta b lish th a t the dec is i on t o s el li nt oxi cat i ng-12-

beve r ages w as thatof the f r anchis ee , as w a s th e d u tyto a b id e b ya ll s t at e al cohol bever age l aw s . U nderthos e admi t t ed fa ct s , the tr i al c o u rt c o rre c tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t P izz a In n , In c ., h a d n o d u tyto Pl ai nt i ff. Id
. at 90 (em p h asis ad d ed ). Pl ai nt i ffs s epar at el ycont end thatA nheus er - B us ch s houl d be l i abl e t o them beca us e of i t s i nt ernal pol i ci es des i gned t o m i ni m i ze the r i s k of al cohol - i nduced acc i dent s . A ppar ent l yr el y i ng on an A nheus er - B us ch bookl etthatout l i nes p ro g ra m s th a t A n h e u se r-B u sc h h a s u n d e rta k e n to p ro m o te “ re sp o n sib le c o n su m p tio n o f

o u r b e e rs,” A p lt. A p p . V o l. I at 2 2 7 , inc lu d in g e ffo rts to e d u c a te r et ai l er s , t heyas s ertthatA nheus er - B us ch “c l ear l yes t abl i s hed s i gni fi canti nt ernal pol i ci es i n an effor tt o pr eventand/ orr educe i rr es pons i bl e dr i nki ng and drunk dr i vi ng. ” A pl t . B r . at15–16. T heythen cl ai m , “C er t ai nl y , a ques t i on of fa ct e x ists a s to w h e th e r A n h e u se r-B u sc h v io late d th e se p o licie s, a n d w h e th e r it co u ld be found ne gl i gentas a r es ul t . ” Id . at16. W e ques t i on the pr opos i t i on that A n h e u se r-B u sc h ’s a d o p tio n o f in ter n a l p o licie s w o u ld im p o se o n it a d u tyto c o n s u m e rs to fo llo w th o s e p o lic ie s . See P a te , 49 P. 3d at90 ( fr anchi s orhad no “dutyt o pr oper l yt r ai n and s upervi s e the Fr anchi s ees i n the ar ea of al cohol aw ar enes s , ” des pi t e i t s contr ol overfr anchi s ees , i t s pr ofi tfr om al cohol s al es , and i t s pr i oradopt i on of “a n ‘ A l cohol A w ar enes s ’ gui de/m anual ” fortr ai ni ng f ra n c h ise e s (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d )); c f. P ri nce v. St
. Joh n Med. C tr. , 957 P. 2d 563, 565–66 ( O kl a. C i v. A pp. 1998) ( di s char ge forr eport i ng “vi ol at i ons-13-

of i nt ernal pol i ci es of a pr i vat e empl oy er ” i s i ns uffi ci entforl i abi l i tyforw r ongful di s char ge i n vi ol at i on of publ i c pol i cy ) . B uteven i f w e embr ace d that pr opos i t i on, Pl ai nt i ffs on appea l fai l t o poi ntt o a part i cul arpol i cyt hatw as al l egedl yvi ol at ed ort o anyevi dence of s uch a vi ol at i on. I n the abs ence of s uch fac tual s uppor tfort hi s t heoryof r el i ef, s um m aryj udgm entforA nheus er - B us ch o n th e c la im m u s t b e a ffir m e d . See Adl erv. Wal

- Mar tSt or es , 144 F. 3d 664, 679 ( 10t h C i r . 1998) ( “ [B]a l d as s ert i ons i n br i efs t hatt her e ar e genui ne i s s ues of m aterial fa ct are in su ffici en t t o m eritrev ersa l of su m m aryjud g m en t”). B . L i abi l i t y as Joi nt V ent urer P lain tiffs a rg u e th a t A n h e u se r-B u sc h is liab le r e g a rd les s o f w h e th e r it s erved bee rdi r ect l yt o A l br i ghtbeca us e Tum bl ew eed di d, and A nheus er - B us ch w as i n a j oi ntventur e w i t h T um bl ew eed. I n O kl ahoma a partym aybe l i abl e for th e to rt s o f

its jo in t v e n tu re rs . See LeFl or e v. R ef l ect i ons of

Tuls a, Inc. , 708 P. 2d 1068, 1071- 72 ( O kl a. 1985) . O kl ahoma l aw cons i der s part i es t o be i n a j oi nt ventur e w hen thr ee e l ement s ar e s at i s fi ed: “( 1) j oi nti nt er es ti n pr operty , ( 2) an expr es s ori m pl i ed agr eementt o s har e pr ofi t s and l os s es of the ventur e and ( 3) act i on orconducts how i ng cooper at i on i n the pr oj ect . ” Ma rtin v . C h ap e l, Wi lki ns on, R iggs , & Abney , 6 3 7 P . 2 d 8 1 , 8 5 (O k la. 1 9 8 1 ). T h e d istri ct co u rt fo u n d t h a tt h e r e w a s n o p r o fi t - s h a r i n g a g r e e m e n t , a n d h e n c e n o j o i n tv e n tu r e . We agr ee.-14-

In su p p o rt o f

th e ir jo in t-v e n tu re a rg u m e n t, P lain tiffs p o in t to b o th A n h eu ser-B u sch ’s pro v isi o n o f b ee r at th e C alf F ryan d A n h eu ser-B u sch ’s i nvol vementi n publ i ci t yand s pons or s hi p of the eve nt . A s w e pr evi ous l ys t at ed, al t hough t he A gr eementbetw een the Pr om ot erand A nheus er - B us ch w as not fa c iallyw ith T u m b lew e e d , w e a ss u m e w ith o u t d e c id in g th a t itw a s a c tu a llyw ith T um bl ew eed, and w e w i l l notdi s t i ngui s h fur therbetw een Tum bl ew eed a nd the P rom o ter. N onethel es s , t her e w as no j oi ntventur e bec aus e A nheus er - B us ch and T um bl ew eed di d nots har e pr ofi t s w i th one another . V i r tual l yal l pr oduct s and se rv ice s p ro v id e d b yo n e to th e o th e r w e re p a id fo r a t m a rk e t p ric e s. N o t o n ly does t he A gr eements t i pul at e thatthe part i es have c ontr act ed atm arketr at es , but Pl ai nt i ffs have notdi s put ed thatA nheus er - B us ch w as pai d a mar ketr at e forthe beert hati ts ol d t o T um bl ew eed. A nheus er - B us ch ce r t ai nl ybenef i t t ed fr om the success of t he ev ent bysel l i ng m ore beer, bu tthis i s true of an ysupp l i er. A s a s el l erof bee r , i tw as s i m pl ypai d fori t s pr oduct . Separ at el y , A nheus er - B us ch p a id to b e th e tit le s p o n so r o f th e C a lf

F ry . U n d e r O k lah o m a law th e re latio n sh ip b e tw e e n A n h e u s e r- B u s c h a n d T u m b le w e e d w a s th e re fo re n o t a jo in t v e n tu re . See McG ee v . A l exande r , 37 P. 3d 800, 806 ( O kl a. 2001) ( no pr ofi ts har i ng w hen s uppl i er“pr ovi ded and c har ged fors ervi ces ata pr edet erm i ned r at e”; ther e w as “s i m pl ynot hi ng i n t he s um m aryj udgm entr ecor d i ndi cat i ng W i l l ow C r eek w as-15-

pr epar ed t o offe ri t s s ervi ces ata l os s orr eap a ddi t i onal pr ofi t s dependi ng on the su cc ess o r l ac k there o f o f th e H il lcrest ev en t”). T o s uppor tt hei rj oi nt - ventur e ar gum ent , Pl ai nt i ffs r el yon L eF l ore , 708 P. 2d 1068. I n L eF l ore t he w i nnerof the “M i s s L egs of Tul s a” c ont es ts ued a re sta u ra n t fo r in v a d in g h e r p riv a c yb yu sin g h e r n a m e w ith o u t h e r p e rm iss io n to a d v e rt is e a n “ I l o v e y o u , T u ls a ” p a rt ya t th e re s ta u ra n t. Id . at1070. T he r es t aur antcont ended thati tw as notl i abl e bec aus e the adve r t i s ementw as pr oduced a nd br oadca s ts ol el ybya r adi o s t at i on; butthe pl ai nt i ff r es ponded that t he part yw as a j oi ntventur e of the r es t aur ant , the r adi o s t at i on, and a c l othi ng s t or e, s o t he r es t aur ants har ed l i abi l i ty . T he r adi o s t at i on advert i s ed and hos t ed t he part y ; t he cl ot hi ng s t or e pr es ent ed a fas hi on s how atthe party ; and the r es t aur ant pr ovi ded t he fac i l i t y , the s t aff, and food, butchar ged patr ons hal f pr i ce fo r be v era g es. T h e thre e e n terprises d id n o t i m p o se a n ych arg es o n o n e a n o ther; and theys har ed “pr ofi t ” i n t hatal l benef i t t ed fr om t he publ i ci tys urr oundi ng t he event , al t hough t he r es t aur antal s o der i ved s om e pr ofi tfr om t he hal f- pr i ce b ev era g e sa les an d sales o f c lub m em b ersh ips. T h e O k laho m a S u p rem e C o u rt u p h e ld th e ju ry ’s fin d in g th a t th e re sta u ra n t h a d e n g a g e d in a jo in t v e n tu re w ith th e ra d io s ta tio n a n d th e c lo th in g s to re . Id . at1072–73. Pl ai nt i ffs ar gue thatj us tas t he bus i nes s es i n L eF l ore w ere joint ve n turers b e c a u s e t h e y s h a r e d t h e “ p r o fi t s ” o f t h e “ I l o v e yo u , T u l s a ” p u b l i c i ty, T u m b lew e e d a n d A n h e u se r-B u sc h b o th d e p e n d e d o n th e su c c e ss o f th e C a lf

F ryto-16-

g en era te p u b li city an d thu s sh are d the p rofit s o f the ev en t. B u t A n h eu ser-B u sch ’s pur chas e of s pons or s hi p r i ght s does notm ake i ta j oi ntventur erw i th the s el l erof th o se rig h ts. A lth o u g h b o th A n h e u se r-B u sc h a n d T u m b lew e e d sto o d to b e n e fit i f t he C al f Fr ys ucce eded, t hi s al i gnm entof i nt er es t s ar os e bec aus e Tum bl ew eed so ld p a rt o f

its p u b licityin ter e st to A n h e u se r-B u sc h . T h e p a rties d id n o t share th a t in ter e st. In d e e d , the A g re e m e n t co n tain e d a p ro m ise f ro m T u m b lew e e d to A n h e u se r-B u sc h th a t at le a st 1 5 0 0 p e o p le w o u ld a tten d e a c h C a lf F rye v e n t, t her ebys hi ft i ng t he r i s k of pooratt endanc e t o T um bl ew eed. T o ad op tP l ai nti ffs’ ar gum entw oul d be t o i m agi ne thatO kl ahoma l aw t r eat s as a j oi ntventur erany ent i t yt hatpay s t o have i t s name t i ed t o an eve ntr egar dl es s of i t s contr ol of the act i vi t y . U nl i ke the s i tuat i on i n L eF l ore , everys i gni fi cantcomponentof the r el at i ons hi p betw een A nheus er - B us ch and Tum bl ew eed w as boughtand s ol d at m arketr at es . Pl ai nt i ffs poi ntt o A nheus er - B us ch’ s gr atui t ous pr ovi s i on of log ist ical si g n s at th e e v en t, b u t th is r eflected o n lyan incid en tal co st t o A n h eu serB u sc h a n d is a c u sto m a ryse rv ice it p ro v id e s fo r its re tail a c c o u n ts. T h is c a se is n o tc o n t r o l l e d b y L eF l ore . I I I . CO NC L US I ON F o r th e fo reg o ing rea so n s w e A F F IR M the d istri ct co u rt ’s gra n t of su m m ary j udgm entt o A nheus er - B us ch.