Opinion ID: 1595020
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicability of Mississippi's Dram Shop Statute to Penn National

Text: ¶ 7. The Ratliffs' complaint alleges that Casino Magic and its employee McManus violated this state's prohibition of the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons who are visibly intoxicated. However, the prohibition in Mississippi's dram shop statute creates liability for the permit holder and any employees of the permit holder. Penn National, as the sole shareholder of permit-holder BSL, is neither. This Court has long recognized the legal integrity of the corporate entity and the concomitant limited liability of shareholders. Gray v. Edgewater Landing, Inc., 541 So.2d 1044, 1046 (Miss.1989). A corollary principle is that an individual shareholder, by virtue of his ownership of shares, does not own the corporation's assets. Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468, 123 S.Ct. 1655, 1660, 155 L.Ed.2d 643, 652 (2003). Even when a parent corporation owns all of the stock of a subsidiary corporation, the parent does not, for that reason alone, own or have legal title to the assets of the subsidiary. Id. The retail alcohol permit is a privilege granted by the state, held by the permittee, and cannot be transferred without the written consent of the State Tax Commission. See Miss.Code Ann. § 67-1-67 (Rev.2005). As such, it cannot be attributed to a lawfully distinct corporate entity. ¶ 8. The Ratliffs nevertheless argue that Penn National is vicariously liable for the actions of the casino's staff because the parent company sets the policies of the casino and is involved in its daily operations. This claim amounts to an allegation that BSL is merely the alter ego of Penn National, which would justify this Court's piercing the corporate veil and attributing the acts or omissions of BSL to Penn National.