Opinion ID: 2513957
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Identification of the Legislative Objectives

Text: [ถ 47] The Greenwalts assert that ง 301 is silent as to its intended purpose. They maintain, however, that the history of the statute, as well as the comments of its drafter [Representative Tom Jones], sheds significant light on its intended function. They infer that the legislature's very clear intent was the liability insurance issue; thus, they infer that total immunity was granted to Wyoming's liquor vendors in an effort to protect their financial interests and liability insurers from the potentially large verdicts for which they could be held responsible, referencing this Court's McClellan decision. In their effort to negative every [reasonably] conceivable basis which might support [the legislative classification], F.C.C. v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. at 315, 113 S.Ct. at 2102; see also, Hoem, 756 P.2d at 782-83; Mountain Fuel Supply Co., 578 P.2d at 1355, the Greenwalts hypothesize, and then reject, the objective of allocation of all the consequences of intoxication to the intoxicated customer. Finally, they dismiss as a possible objective the legislating of proximate cause issues because Wyoming's comparative fault statute, Wyo. Stat. Ann. ง 1-1-109, already accomplishes this function and the legislature has no interest in duplicating this task. [ถ 48] Countering the Greenwalts' assertions, the defenders of ง 301 propose that the obvious primary legislative objective is to define a cause of action historically unknown at the common law that harmonizes... with the compelling State interest in regulating the sale, gift, and consumption of alcohol. Moreover, they contend that [t]he statute accomplishes this purpose by defining the extensive rules and regulations of Title 12 as the appropriate standard of care for those who furnish alcohol to others. Thus, the State encourages compliance with the mandates of Title 12 by attaching the potential for civil liability for those who violate the law. [ถ 49] Having carefully considered the parties' contentions, we must disagree with the Greenwalts' identification of the legislative objective and agree with the defenders' identification. As Professors Tussman and tenBroek remind us with simplicity, [t]he purpose of a law may be either the elimination of a public `mischief' or the achievement of some positive good. Tussman, supra, 37 Cal. L.Rev. at 346. To discover the legislative objective, one commentator counsels: [T]he court may properly consider not only the language of the statute but also general public knowledge about the evil to be remedied, prior law, accompanying legislation, enacted statements of purpose, formal public pronouncements, and internal legislative history. If an objective can confidently be inferred from the provisions of the statute itself, recourse to internal legislative history and other ancillary materials is unnecessary. Developments in the LawโEqual Protection, 82 Harv. L.Rev. at 1077. [ถ 50] Another commentator writing of the act of discovering ... purpose, advises [g]enerally it is unmistakable. Max Radin, A Short Way With Statutes, 56 Harv. L.Rev. 388, 398 (1942). At the risk of restating the obvious, Professor Radin observes: The statute is expressed in definite written words. They have been selected not for their symbolic or esoteric value, nor even for their logical or aesthetic quality, but primarily to let us know the statutory purpose. Id. at 400. He further helpfully explains: A statute is better described as an instruction to administrators and courts to accomplish a definite result, usually the securing or maintaining of recognized social, political, or economic values. If figures of speech will help, we may call the statute a ground design, or a plan in which the character and size of a structure are indicated, and in which details are given only so far as they are necessary to assure the erection of the desired structure. We may follow the figure further ... and say that details of construction may sometimes be provided in order that losses may not be suffered in other social structures of equal or even greater value. Id. at 407. Finally, Professor Radin observes: The purpose of the statute is not quite the same as its policy. The policy may be part of a general governmental theory. The purpose is the specific result than can reasonably be taken to be what the statute is striving to attain.     The determination both of the purpose and means must be affected by reading the words of the statute. To be sure ... it should be from a reading of the whole statute and not from an examination of detached words.... All things which are before us are expressed in words and not otherwise. Id. at 408-09. [ถ 51] Having read the definite written words of ง 301 and the other pertinent provisions of Title 12, having considered the general public knowledge about the evils attending the sale and furnishing of intoxicating liquors to our state's citizens, and having considered the prior common law decisions and statutory law, we can confidently conclude that the legislative objective of ง 301 is unmistakably what the defenders of that law have identified: a comprehensive statutory tort claim affecting liquor providers (both licensee and non-licensees), intoxicated customers/guests of all liquor providers, and third parties who are damaged by intoxicated customers/guests. Unquestionably, ง 301 has at least three basic secondary purposes, as is common with respect to tort claims generally, namely: (1) penal or deterrence (intended to punish liquor providers for the wrongful provision thereof); (2) compensatory (intended to provide compensation for injured third-party victims); and (3) regulatory (intended to impose some of the costs of alcohol-related injuries on the industry and citizenry and to ensure adequate financial responsibility/insurance from industry and citizen participants). Red Flame, Inc. v. Martinez, 2000 UT 22, ถ 16, 996 P.2d 540, ถ 16 (Utah 2000) (Durham, Assoc. C.J., dissenting), and authorities cited therein. We believe that [t]hese purposes reflect significant public policy choices about financial liability for a widespread source of private and public harmโthe damage done by intoxicated persons to third parties. Red Flame, Inc. ถ 16. [ถ 52] We reject the Greenwalts' proffer of evidence, in the form of sponsor Representative Tom Jones' letter to the Legislative Service Office, as evidence of the legislature's intent in enacting ง 301. Independent Producers Marketing Corp. v. Cobb, 721 P.2d 1106, 1108 (Wyo.1986); see also, Rasmussen v. Baker, 7 Wyo. 117, 147-48, 50 P. 819, 827-28 (1897), (cautioning against the reliability of the various remarks of members of the Wyoming Constitutional Convention upon the subject of the construction of any particular provision of the state constitution). [ถ 53] We also reject Greenwalts' brief argument that the legislature would not have had the objective of legislating proximate cause issues because the comparative fault statute, ง 1-1-109, already accomplishes this function. While it is true that the legislature in that particular law generally espoused the comparative negligence approach for negligence actions, this is not to say that the legislature is precluded from subsequently limiting, or even rejecting altogether, the application of comparative negligence in negligence actions arising out of particular circumstances. Coghlan, 987 P.2d at 309; and see, Red Flame, Inc., ถ 20 (Durham, J., dissenting). [ถ 54] We have now identified both the legislative classification at issue and the legislative objectives. Having worked our way through these first two test elements of rational-basis review, we next proceed to the third, and final, element, whether the legislative classification is rationally related to the achievement of an appropriate legislative purpose. Whether the Legislative Classification is Rationally Related to the Achievement of an Appropriate Legislative Purpose [ถ 55] As we have noted in our above and foregoing treatment of the first two elements of the rational-basis test, the Greenwalts identified the relevant legislative classification at issue as victims of alcohol vendor negligence and identified the legislative objective as the protection of the financial interests of Wyoming's liquor vendors and their insurers against potentially large verdicts in cases arising out of tragic motor vehicle accidents like the ones described in Parsons and McClellan. Because the Greenwalts have incorrectly identified both the legislative classification at issue and the legislative objectives, they do not enjoy a position of strength from which to launch a successful attack on this third, and final, element of the rational-basis review test. Proceeding from these incorrect premises, the Greenwalts assert here that the classification of victims of alcohol vendor negligence is not rationally related to the achievement of an appropriate legislative purpose in that the protection of the financial interests of Wyoming liquor vendors and their insurers is most certainly not an appropriate legislative purpose. They contend, as noted earlier, that ง 301 is irrational because it attempts to legislate proximate cause and because it actually serves to damage the State's important interest in promoting public health and safety. In ง 301, they maintain, the legislature has taken away the positive deterrent affect [sic] that civil liability has on every other individual and commercial citizen in Wyoming ... despite the fact that vendors of alcohol are distributing a particularly dangerous product. They ask this Court to consider the unique position alcohol vendors enjoy. In this regard, they say that [c]ommercial vendors sell and distribute the majority of the intoxicating beverages which contribute to the intoxication and resulting injury of Wyoming citizens. They claim that alcohol vendors are often the sole source of recovery for injuries which are caused by the vendor's improper sale of alcohol ... [and] are in a unique situation to insure against potential loss suffered ... and to spread the costs of insurance by increasing drink prices. Finally, they contend that vendors of alcohol, particularly restaurant and bar owners, are in an exceptional position to protect the public by preventing their patrons from imbibing excessive amounts of alcohol and, thereafter, being turned out into the night to endanger the public. With the experience and training that many vendor's [sic] employees have in recognizing intoxication, combined with the vendor's own internal guidelines and standards for detecting and dealing with obviously intoxicated patrons, such as existed in the Defendant's organization, vendors are in a better position than law enforcement, the general public or the victims of intoxication to prevent the tragedies which arise from the consumption of alcohol. The Greenwalts conclude that ง 301 actually defeats the legitimate legislative objectives of protecting the public, spreading the costs of liability, and curbing the profit motives of alcohol vendors. [4] [ถ 56] As we noted earlier in this opinion, the defenders disagreed with the Greenwalts' analyses of the first two elements of the rational-basis test and set forth their own analyses with which, as previously explained, we were in agreement. It is not surprising, then, on this final element of the rational-basis test, that we find the defenders of ง 301 in disagreement once more with the Greenwalts. The defenders correctly identified both the legislative classifications at issue and the legislative objectives. Proceeding from these correct premises, the defenders here maintain that the classifications of lawful and unlawful liquor providers and third parties injured by lawfully and unlawfully served intoxicated persons are rationally related to the achievement of the primary legitimate legislative objective of creating all the necessary elements of a statutory tort claim historically unknown in Wyoming's common law that harmonizes with the State's legitimate interest in regulating the sale, gift, and consumption of alcohol. They also maintain that these classifications are rationally related to the achievement of the several secondary legislative objectives that attend the creation of any tort claim, namely, deterrence, compensation, and regulating or cost-spreading. It is elementary that the traditional elements of a negligence tort claim are duty, breach of duty, proximate cause, and damages. The legislative classifications clearly revolve around these elements and the traditional policy considerations that drive them. As the defenders point out, the legislature has defined the duty/breach of duty elements in terms of the liquor providers' violations of the regulatory provisions of Title 12. As they contend, that mode of definition is, and always has been, perfectly acceptable in tort law. Indeed, in McClellan, this Court itself did just that, that is, it established the legal duty of the alcohol vendor as a function of compliance with two particular statutory provisions, one dealing with unlawfully providing alcohol to underage persons, the other dealing with unlawfully providing alcohol to an intoxicated person in a motor vehicle at the alcohol vendor's drive-in area. With respect to the tort claim element of proximate cause, the legislature has, as the defenders note, and as the Greenwalts protest, legislated the rationale of the old common law rule recognized by this Court in Parsons: as long as the liquor provider lawfully provided the liquor, the proximate cause of the injury was deemed to be the consumption of liquor and not its sale. The defenders advise us that other courts have recognized that it is not irrational for a legislature to adopt the public policy pronouncements expressed in the decisions of a common law court. See, e.g., Doering, 532 N.W.2d at 442. Because the legislature has tied the elements of duty/ breach of duty and proximate cause with the extensive mandates of Title 12, the defenders reason, that tie well serves the legitimate interest of promoting compliance with those mandates. [ถ 57] The defenders also note that the classification promotes one of the most fundamental public policies in Wyoming, that of personal responsibility. As the defenders state it, [t]his is especially true when a person legally provides alcohol to a responsible adult. The responsible adult is charged with the duty to act responsibly when drinking and, the defenders observe, even when intoxicated. Section 301 specifically preserves the third party's tort claim against that intoxicated person. In the defenders' view, to the extent that another legislative configuration would impose liability upon the lawful liquor provider, that configuration may tend to discourage the drinker's responsibility to act reasonably under the circumstances. [ถ 58] Answering the Greenwalts' argument that the legislature would have been better advised to place on the alcohol provider (vendor, bartender, wait staff, liquor store clerks, and social hosts of every kind) the duty to monitor the drinking citizen's consumption, the defenders respond that, yes, the legislature could have drawn the line differently than it did, but sound reasons exist why it chose not to. The defenders explain at length that placing the monitoring duty upon the alcohol provider would then raise the question of whether it is proper and fair to require [an alcohol provider] to substitute his or her judgment for that of a responsible adult when it comes to the consumption of alcohol. Who should have the responsibility to monitor a person's alcoholic intake and subsequent actionsโa mature adult [drinker] or a waiter?     If the legislature did decide to impose such a duty on suppliers of alcohol, what are its practical limits? Is the duty limited to those [drinkers] who the [supplier] knows will be driving? Must [the supplier] ask every patron to check [his or her] car keys at the door? If so, when may [the supplier] return the keys? Must [a supplier] administer a breathalyzer test before returning keys? What if the person swears [he or she isn't] driving? Is this promise sufficient or must [the supplier] actually follow the person out to the car to make certain [he or she doesn't] get behind the wheel? Must [the supplier] ascertain whether the person consumed alcohol before arrival? Should servers of alcohol institute a drink count and, if so, what is the limit? Should the legislature attempt to enact such stringent rules? How would these rules apply to vendors who face a wide variety of circumstances? For example, how exactly would Cheyenne Frontier Days or the Casper Events Center monitor the intake of those buying beer? And where does all of this leave the social host, or the non-profit organization that may serve alcohol at a function? The defenders argue that [t]he difficulty in enforcement is obvious. [ถ 59] They also observe that the legislature may have desired to enact only those laws that clearly define the conduct required of its citizens. They posit that the legislature may have reasonably believed that [w]ithout defined limits, [alcohol providers] potentially face liability or at least the costly threat of litigation every time they serve a beer. They say that the legislature may have reasonably believed that that threat would pose a hardship on the small businessmen and [business women] who own and operate the vast majority of the restaurants, bars, and package liquor stores in our state. The defenders further observe that [t]he legislature could also have been concerned that the creation of a new and expansive cause of action would create additional burdens on a court system, which would then implicate the legislature's role in funding the judicial system. [ถ 60] Summing up, the defenders remind this Court that it falls to the legislative department to draw the lines in approaching the solution to a difficult and complex social problem, which intoxication certainly is. In this instance, they urge, the legislature has made the tough choices and has rationally drawn those lines by declaring that the intoxicated adult, not the alcohol provider who lawfully serves alcohol, is legally responsible for his or her own actions. They maintain that ง 301 serves numerous legitimate state interests and applies equally to both alcohol vendors and social hosts. [ถ 61] We have carefully considered the parties' thrusts and parries, and gratefully acknowledge their excellent and thought-provoking arguments. We must now decide. We disagree with the Greenwalts' analysis and are compelled to side with the defenders' stronger and more persuasive presentation. To avoid extending unnecessarily the length of this opinion, we shall enumerate only briefly those telling points which are primary with us. [ถ 62] The legislature in 1985 enacted and then in 1986 amended ง 301 with full knowledge of and with reference to Parsons and McClellan. Accordingly, the legislature could reasonably have concluded that the full nature and scope of the liability and immunity of all alcohol providers, licensed vendors and non-licensed persons alike, was uncertain. The legislature could reasonably have concluded that McClellan's judicially-created tort claim was narrowly drawn given the operative facts of that case. Given the Court's invitation in Parsons and the Court's impatience in McClellan, the legislature could reasonably have concluded that the time had come to address the social problem revealed in those cases. The legislature could have rationally thought that it must create a comprehensive, yet simple-to-administer tort claim to cover all liquor providers and intoxicated persons. It could have rationally thought that the establishment of an unquestioned and predictable yet limited basis for legal liability would provide a more effective incentive for the responsible furnishing of alcohol and the realization of the primary purpose. See, e.g., Peters v. Saft, 597 A.2d 50, 52-53 (Me.1991). [ถ 63] The classifications are rationally related to the achievement of other legitimate secondary purposes as well. Alcohol providers are encouraged to provide alcohol lawfully, in compliance with the mandates of Title 12. Injured persons have the opportunity in all cases to be compensated by the intoxicated persons, and to be compensated in those cases in which the intoxicated person was unlawfully served. Underage persons are protected in the sense that alcohol providers are exposed to liability to third persons injured by unlawfully served underage persons; that exposure encourages alcohol providers not to unlawfully serve underage persons. Dependents and spouses of habitual drunkards are similarly protected in that same fashion. The legitimate purposes of deterrence, compensation, and regulation or cost-spreading, always present in the social justice system of tort law, are served in this legislation. Among the policy considerations enumerated in Gates and similar common law decisions of this Court, the foreseeability factor looms large. The legislature could have reasonably concluded that an alcohol provider cannot reasonably foresee the myriad ways in which any given intoxicated person might injure a third party. A motor vehicle accident is certainly one way, but, the legislature may have reasonably thought, more often than not an alcohol provider will not know by what means of transportation the customer arrived and will leave the licensed premises. However, the legislature may have reasonably thought, in the instance of an intoxicated person in a motor vehicle at the drive-in area, the alcohol provider would have a better opportunity to know that customer's means of transportation; therefore, the legislature drew a line and provided for liability if the alcohol provider furnished alcohol to that intoxicated drive-in customer. [ถ 64] Another of the public policy factors which may have been reasonably considered by the legislature is the burden on the potential alcohol provider defendant. The defenders have satisfactorily addressed this policy factor. But we would add this. Justice Abrahamson, writing for a unanimous Wisconsin Supreme Court in Doering, 532 N.W.2d at 442-43, in which the court upheld that state's dramshop statute against an equal protection challenge much like the one we resolve today, posited that a legislature could reasonably conclude it places too difficult a task on the alcohol provider to determine when customers become intoxicated. [ถ 65] We could continue, but we shall not. The points have been satisfactorily made. The equal protection safeguards of both the Federal and Wyoming constitutions do not require that the legislature draw its lines with mathematical certainty or even that it exercise its policy-making judgment in the best or wisest way. We hold that the legislative classifications at issue are rationally related to the legitimate legislative objectives of ง 301. [ถ 66] Having completed our rational-basis review, we hold that the Greenwalts have not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that ง 12-8-301 violates the equal protection guarantees of the United States and Wyoming Constitutions.