Title: DeLoach v. Mayer Elec. Supply Co.
Citation: 378 So. 2d 733
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 21, 1979

378 So. 2d 733 (1979)
Ronald L. DeLOACH
v.
MAYER ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY et al.
78-703.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
December 21, 1979.
Curtis W. Gordon, Jr. and William J. Wynn, III of Hare, Wynn, Newell &amp; Newton, Birmingham, for appellant.
Brittin T. Coleman and Stephen B. Brown of Bradley, Arant, Rose &amp; White, Birmingham, for appellee Mayer Electric Supply Co., Inc.
Thomas B. Huie of Huie, Fernambucq, Stewart &amp; Smith, Birmingham, for appellee Britling Cafeteria Co., Inc.
BLOODWORTH, Justice.
This appeal is from an order granting both defendants' motions for summary judgment, holding that there is no genuine issue of material fact under either negligence or the Dram Shop Act. We affirm.
Defendant Mayer Electric hosted an open house and "New Products Show" on its premises, furnishing soft drinks, mixed drinks, and beer. Defendant Britling catered the show and provided the food, along *734 with soft drinks, bar supplies, and bartenders. Mayer Electric employees had been invited to attend the show, which was held from 5:00 p. m. to 9:00 p. m. Alphonso Wells, a Mayer Electric employee, "clocked in" on his regular job at 7:03 a. m. and "clocked out" at 7:11 p. m. Thereafter, he attended the show and allegedly became intoxicated from the beverages provided. Upon leaving Mayer Electric's premises, he drove his motor vehicle onto the "wrong side" of Interstate 59, striking plaintiff DeLoach, a police officer on a motorcycle, seriously injuring him.
DeLoach contended that since Mayer Electric and Britling are not in the business of selling liquor, beer, or any intoxicating beverages, and since Mayer Electric and Britling provided the beverages, both had violated the Dram Shop Act of Alabama, the violation of which proximately caused DeLoach's injuries. In addition, DeLoach brought a count against Mayer Electric and Britling based upon common law negligence for furnishing the alcoholic beverages to Wells.
Both Mayer Electric and Britling filed motions for summary judgment. The motions were granted.
The precise issues for our review are whether the Dram Shop Act, Code 1975, § 6-5-71(a), applies in the fact situation presented, and whether DeLoach has a cause of action for common law negligence against Mayer Electric and Britling for disbursing alcohol to Wells.
The Dram Shop Act provides:
"§ 6-5-71. Right of Action of wife, child, parent or other person for injury in consequence of illegal sale or disposition of liquor or beverages.
Code 1975, § 6-5-71(a). DeLoach contends that the act is applicable because the alcohol furnished to Wells was furnished "contrary to the provisions of law,"[1] based upon a statutory analysis of §§ 28-3-260(10) and 28-3-1(16) of the 1975 Code, which provide:
"It shall be unlawful:
DeLoach's contention is that Mayer Electric and Britling are not licensed to sell alcoholic beverages, that they "sold" alcoholic beverages to Wells because there was consideration flowing from Wells to Mayer and Britling in exchange for the beverages, that an unlicensed sale is illegal, and that there is therefore a prohibited act within the meaning of "contrary to the provisions of law" in the Dram Shop Act. DeLoach's claim, then, hinges upon the contention that there was a "sale" to Wells by Mayer Electric and Britling.
It is clear to us, and we so hold, that there was no "sale" to Wells within the meaning of § 28-3-1(16) because there was no consideration present. DeLoach contends that there was consideration in that Wells, an employee of Mayer Electric, could be called into service if needed. We think such analysis reaches too far.
*735 It is undisputed that Britling catered the show and provided the work force necessary to serve those attending the show, and that Wells had already "clocked out." It is also undisputed that Mayer Electric invited all its employees to attend the show. It was not mandatory. We therefore hold that there was no "sale" within the meaning of §§ 28-3-260(10), -1(16), and that, under the fact situation presented, the Dram Shop Act is not applicable.
DeLoach's remaining contention is that Alabama should recognize an action for common law negligence for disbursing alcohol to Wells, allegedly causing his intoxication and the resulting accident and injuries to DeLoach. In so contending, DeLoach recognizes that King v. Henkie, 80 Ala. 505 (1876), held that an action under common law negligence could not be maintained against one for disbursing alcohol. However, DeLoach submits that social attitudes and public policy have changed since King was decided, and that this court should change the law to meet society's change. We cannot agree.
The rule expressed in King is as viable today as when first expressed. In King, the Court held:
80 Ala. at 510.
The majority of jurisdictions in this country do not recognize a common law cause of action for negligence in the distribution of alcohol. See Annotation, 8 A.L.R.3d 1412 (1966) and jurisdictions there listed. We do not choose, at this time, to depart from the rule expressed in King and followed by a majority of jurisdictions.
We conclude that the trial court was correct in granting Mayer Electric's and Britling's motions for summary judgment as to the counts in the complaint based upon the Dram Shop Act and common law negligence.
AFFIRMED.
TORBERT, C. J., and FAULKNER, ALMON and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
[1]  See § 6-5-71, supra.