Opinion ID: 1139310
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Plaintiffs' Action Pursuant to the Dram Shop Act.

Text: Both Mr. Espey and his son Jimmy assert claims pursuant to § 6-5-71, Alabama's Dram Shop Act, based on Connie's intoxication. Mr. Espey argues that he also asserted a claim under § 6-5-71 based on Jimmy's intoxication. Section 6-5-71 provides in pertinent part: (a) Every wife, child, parent or other person who shall be injured in person, property or means of support by any intoxicated person or in consequence of the intoxication of any person shall have a right of action against any person who shall, by selling, giving or otherwise disposing of to another, contrary to the provisions of law, any liquors or beverages, cause the intoxication of such person for all damages actually sustained, as well as exemplary damages. (Emphasis added.) As to Mr. Espey's alleged claim based on Jimmy's intoxication, the record indicates that Mr. Espey did not assert such a claim. The count setting out the plaintiffs' claim under § 6-5-71 identifies Connie Price as the intoxicated person that caused the plaintiffs' injuries. That count does not even allege that Jimmy Espey's own intoxication contributed to his injuries. In fact, nothing in the entire record can reasonably be read to assert a claim on behalf of James under § 6-5-71 arising from the intoxication of his son. As to the plaintiffs' claims based on Connie's intoxication, we find the wording of the statute itself dispositive. The statute provides a cause of action against any person who shall, by selling, giving or otherwise disposing of to another, contrary to the provisions of law, any liquors or beverages, cause the intoxication of such person. Convenience sold the beer to Jimmy, not Connie; that is undisputed. The sale to Jimmy was contrary to the provisions of law, but the claim involved in this appeal involves the alleged disposition of beer to Connie. Although it may be argued with some merit that Convenience otherwise dispos[ed] of the beer to Connie, we will not hold that Convenience's sale of the beer to Jimmy, who then gave it to Connie, was a disposition of the beer to Connie by Convenience that was contrary to the provisions of law. Consider this example. A clerk sells beer to an adult, who can legally buy the beer, and that adult later gives the beer to a minor. The clerk in the example has no right to refuse to sell the beer to the person legally entitled to buy it. According to the plaintiffs' argument, although the sale itself was legal, the retailer would be liable for selling the beer contrary to the provisions of law. Such a holding would for all practical purposes impose strict liability on retailers of alcohol; we expressly reject such a holding. [4] The judgment of the trial court as to the plaintiffs' claims made pursuant to § 6-5-71 is due to be affirmed. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the cause is remanded. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, SHORES, ADAMS and INGRAM, JJ., concur. STEAGALL, J., concurs in the result. HOUSTON, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.