Opinion ID: 169412
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Negligence of Anheuser-Busch

Text: 14 Plaintiffs contend that Anheuser-Busch was negligent per se because it violated Okla. Stat. tit. 37, § 247, which states: 15 No holder of a retail license or permit to sell . . . beer, or an employee or agent of a holder of such a license or permit, shall knowingly, willfully, and wantonly sell, deliver or furnish . . . beer to an intoxicated person. . . . 16 Plaintiffs assert that the statute applies to Anheuser-Busch because it holds a permit. Although Anheuser-Busch's license is a wholesaler's license, not a retailer's, Plaintiffs say that the word retail in § 247 modifies only license, not permit to sell . . . beer. 17 We are skeptical of Plaintiffs' construction of the statute; but even if Plaintiffs are correct regarding the reach of the adjective retail in the text of the statute, their argument fails for a separate reason: Anheuser-Busch did not sell, deliver or furnish . . . beer to an intoxicated person. No Anheuser-Busch employee sold beer to a consumer in a retail capacity, served any individual retail customer, or otherwise made decisions about which customers were to be served. Although it is undisputed that Anheuser-Busch sold, delivered, and furnished beer at the event, it is equally undisputed that it sold, delivered, and furnished this beer to Tumbleweed, not to an intoxicated person.
18 Plaintiffs contend that Anheuser-Busch is liable under Oklahoma common law regardless of whether it violated § 247. But settled Oklahoma law is to the contrary. In Sanders v. Crosstown Market, Inc., 850 P.2d 1061 (Okla.1993), the Oklahoma Supreme Court declined to impose liability on a grocery store that knowingly sold liquor to a minor, who later served alcohol to the plaintiff, who in turn was involved in an automobile accident. The grocery store had no obligation to anticipate the injuries to the plaintiff from their having sold beer to a minor. Id. at 1064. The court explained that it had recognized only a limited exception to the traditional common-law rule that those who sell alcohol are not liable for the harms caused by those who drink it: 19 In Brigance [ v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., 725 P.2d 300 (Okla.1986)] we created a narrow exception to the common law rule that a tavern keeper who sells alcohol to a customer is not liable for injuries resulting from the customer's drunkenness. In Brigance, a restaurant owner sold alcohol for on premises consumption to a noticeably intoxicated customer. After leaving the restaurant, the customer drove his car while drunk, wrecked it, and a passenger in his car was injured. We modified the common law rule in Brigance. We did not abrogate it. We created a cause of action for the innocent injured passenger against the restaurant owner. Our holding went no further. 20 Sanders, 850 P.2d at 1062; see also Todd, 813 P.2d 508 (refusing to extend Brigance to cover injuries suffered by intoxicated adult driver himself). Of particular relevance to this case, Sanders endorsed the proposition that `liability should not be extended to one who acts only as a conduit in providing alcohol to those who directly serve it to others.' 850 P.2d at 1064 (quoting Wiener v. Gamma Phi Chapter of Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, 258 Or. 632, 485 P.2d 18, 22 (1971)). 21 Anheuser-Busch did not serve alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, or to any consumer for that matter. It did not make decisions about which patrons to serve or how much alcohol to serve, and did not require Tumbleweed to sell alcoholic beverages. It was merely a supplier to a retailer. Like a typical supplier, it did not direct Tumbleweed's retail decisions, despite its presence at the site of the Calf Fry and its support of operations on which sales of beer depended. Plaintiffs are correct that Anheuser-Busch's status as a manufacturer and wholesaler of beer does not immunize it from liability regardless of its actions, but the fact remains that although Anheuser-Busch supplied alcohol for the event, it did not serve alcohol to retail consumers. 22 The wholesaler-retailer connection between Anheuser-Busch and Tumbleweed was not enough to impose common-law liability on Anheuser-Busch. In Pate v. Alian, 49 P.3d 85 (Okla.Civ.App.2002), the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals held that even a franchisor-franchisee relationship did not suffice: 23 [I]t may be true that Pizza Inn, Inc., [the franchisor] had some economic gain from the sale of alcohol that it permitted at this franchised restaurant, but it did not require its franchisees to sell intoxicating beverages, did not maintain any control over service of such beverages, and it was conclusively established that Pizza Inn, Inc., did not hold an alcoholic beverage license. Plaintiff's admissions ... clearly establish that the decision to sell intoxicating beverages was that of the franchisee, as was the duty to abide by all state alcohol beverage laws. Under those admitted facts, the trial court correctly concluded that Pizza Inn, Inc., had no duty to Plaintiff. 24 Id. at 90 (emphasis added). 25 Plaintiffs separately contend that Anheuser-Busch should be liable to them because of its internal policies designed to minimize the risk of alcohol-induced accidents. Apparently relying on an Anheuser-Busch booklet that outlines programs that Anheuser-Busch has undertaken to promote responsible consumption of our beers, Aplt.App. Vol. I at 227, including efforts to educate retailers, they assert that Anheuser-Busch clearly established significant internal policies in an effort to prevent and/or reduce irresponsible drinking and drunk driving. Aplt. Br. at 15-16. They then claim, Certainly, a question of fact exists as to whether Anheuser-Busch violated these policies, and whether it could be found negligent as a result. Id. at 16. We question the proposition that Anheuser-Busch's adoption of internal policies would impose on it a duty to consumers to follow those policies. See Pate, 49 P.3d at 90 (franchisor had no duty to properly train and supervise the Franchisees in the area of alcohol awareness, despite its control over franchisees, its profit from alcohol sales, and its prior adoption of an `Alcohol Awareness' guide/manual for training franchisees (internal quotation marks omitted)); cf. Prince v. St. John Med. Ctr., 957 P.2d 563, 565-66 (Okl.Civ.App.1998) (discharge for reporting violations of internal policies of a private employer is insufficient for liability for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy). But even if we embraced that proposition, Plaintiffs on appeal fail to point to a particular policy that was allegedly violated or to any evidence of such a violation. In the absence of such factual support for this theory of relief, summary judgment for Anheuser-Busch on the claim must be affirmed. See Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir.1998) ([B]ald assertions in briefs that there are genuine issues of material fact are insufficient to merit reversal of summary judgment).