Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-08-28
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF SALOON
kRRPERs.

kRkPERs.
The following opinion has been rem
dered by Judge Greene of the United
States Court. The case grew ont of the
murder of Westfall by his brother in
law, Jack Vincent. at Toledo. Vincent
is now in the Penitentisrv for the deed.
Mrs. Westfall sued Dunnigan, the
saloon keeper, who sold her husband
liquor, for damages. The case came
before Judge Greene. at Chehalis, on
demurrer, which was Overruled:
OPINION.
Section 2059 of our Code says that a
wife who has teen injured in means of
support in consequence of the intoxioa-
tion of any person, shall have right Of
action against the person who sold or
gave the liquor. or who owned the
premises whereon was sold the liquor
whereby the intoxication was caused
From this complaint 10 appears that the
husband of plaintiff was shot twice in
the head by person partially intoxi-
Gated; that the shooting was caused by
the intoxication of this person and the
intoxication Of her husband, and that
the intoxication of both was due to
liquor sold and given to them by de-
tendant. who at the time was also owner
of the premises on which the liquor was
sold.
How the intoxication of the husband
can be a factor in any cause Of action
disclosed in this complaint is not clear.
His intoxication does not appear to
have directly or closely contributed to
his injuries. The Law, indeed, supposes
that drunken men will fall into Ris
chief-lose time, lose money, lose bust
ness, get hurt, hurt other people. But
suoh hurts or losses cannot always be
said to have been Immediately caused
by intoxication. IL drunken man, be-
cause of his drunkenness, stumbles over
a precipioe and is bruised or disabled,
the injury is fairly attributable to bis
intoxication hut IL in his intsxication
he falls In contact with a violent man,
and il, in consequence, beaten or killed,
then, though his being in bad company
may be said to have been caused by his
intoxication, his wounds or bis death
cannot. Wounds or death, in the latter
case, are caused by the exercise OF an
others will, which has no necessary or
preximate casual connection with his
own inebriety. (ShuRart W. Eean, SO
Ills, Sc Schmidt vs. Mitchell, 81 Ills,
1851
do net say that case could not
arise where wounds or death at the
hands of another might not be held due
20 oue's own intoxication. Drunken
ness might make a man 50 act rs TO
cause another 20 slay him in self de-
fense and then, perhaps. the death
might, in legal logic, be ascribed prop
erly to the drunkenness. But in the
case before me, there In nothing to show
any provocation beyond mere words-a
mere quarrel-which certainly could
not be held to be a sufficient provoca.
tion or a cause of homicide or blows.
IL the intoxication of the assailant
made him perpetrate the assault de-
scrihed in the complaint, il il differ
ent matter. To be sure, he did not
stand in the relation Of husband, guar
dian. employer. nor In any other of the
relations mentioned in 2059 to the plain
tiff and IL has been supposed aHd ar
pued that the decision in Qainlan vs.
katz, at Port Townsend in 1880, re-
ouired that he should have stood IN
some such relationship TO her 10 give
her the right TO sue. But that case las
beeu somewhat misunderstood. lt did
not 90 90 far rs to hold that there could
be no recovery unless the person through
whose intoxication the injury was
caused stood in some one Of the statu-
tory relationships to the plaintiff. IL
simply passed on the question whether
the plaintiff must sustain some such re-
lationship as parent, child, guardian or
employer in order 70 be entitled 10 sue.
Nothing farther was necessary TO dis
nose of the demurrer In that case, and
the reasoning of the court kept strictly
within the narrow limits of the ques-
ton il had to adiudicate.
Section 2O59 gives remedy in certain
casss 10 a particular class OF persons.
IL Ia intended to protect certain rela-
tionships existing in society and neces-
sary TO social existence, and 20 provide
thai when the liquor traffic interfsres
With any such relationship. 30 as %
cause injury In person, property OF
means OF support 20 any one sustaining
that relationship, and the injury is N
conseuuer,ce Of the intoxication OF any
peesen whatsoever. the person injured
shall have compensation 10 the extent
Of the injury against every person con
trihntinc TO the intoxication.
Jackson va Brookins, Hun-, so.
Schafer Va. Cox, ~ Ind, 46O.
Gannsley W. Perkins. 30 Mich, fsa.
The beneficent interest OF this section
| IN illustrated BY q reference 10 the com
mon law. Suppose instead OF the hns-
band mentioned In this complaint, ths
wife had been shot. Then. at common
Law. an action would have lain against
the shooter In favor of the husband q
compensate for loss OF her society anc
service and expenses Of her care. 81
parity of reason the wife should navs
had AZ common Law her action aeainsl
the disabler of her husband. She dit
not have il. This statute remedies tha
| inequality. II puts husband and vif'
upon the same footing. But u eoe'
further in purview and relief than ths
| common Law ever did in favor OF any
body. Il compensatss for The pecaniar''
ioss suffered Ia the disability or deafi
Of husband, wife or child, guardian o
ward. employer or employee, and !
recocnizes as an instrument OF iuluf'
and Geath q sale or gift Of liquor vhicl
has produced or contributed 10 produc
intoxicasion.