Opinion ID: 1650698
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Is the defense of contributory negligence available to this dram shop defendant?

Text: Presented here are plaintiffs who carry no taint of complicity or participation in the intoxication of Neis. Defendant does not contend the stipulated intoxication of Neis was unconnected with the collision and resulting injury and damage to plaintiffs. The sole issue is whether plaintiffs' alleged contributory negligence is a defense available to defendant, sued under the dram shop statute, § 129.2. It should be initially noted plaintiffs invoke a statutory right of action not found at common law. Bistline v. Ney Bros., 134 Iowa 172, 111 N.W. 422 (1907). Such statutes are characterized in 45 Am.Jur.2d, Intoxicating Liquors § 561, p. 859, as follows: These statutes, commonly known as `civil damage acts' or `dramshop acts,' afford remedies unknown to the common law. The remedies created by the statutes are not in any sense common-law negligence actions. New, separate, and distinct rights of action are conferred. To the same effect, see 48 C.J.S. Intoxicating Liquors § 432, p. 718. Contributory negligence is ordinarily defined as    conduct on the part of the plaintiff which falls below the standard to which he should conform for his own protection, and which is a legally contributing cause co-operating with the negligence of the defendant in bringing about the plaintiff's harm. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 463, p. 506 (1965). (Emphasis added.) However, defendant's negligence is not an element in this case. Herein lies the reason appellant's brief, although well prepared, cites no decision holding contributory negligence a defense to the statute-based action. On the other hand, numerous jurisdictions have rejected that defense in dram shop litigation, reasoning contributory negligence is inapplicable as a defense because the statutory right is not necessarily based upon fault or negligence. Zucker v. Vogt, 329 F.2d 426 (2 Cir. 1964); Galvin v. Jennings, 289 F.2d 15 (3 Cir. 1961); Cookinham v. Sullivan, 23 Conn.Supp. 193, 179 A.2d 840 (1962); Osinger v. Christian, 43 Ill.App.2d 480, 193 N.E.2d 872 (1963); Genesee Merchants Bank & Trust Co. v. Bourrie, 375 Mich. 383, 134 N.W.2d 713 (1965); Turk v. Long Branch Saloon, Inc., 280 Minn. 438, 159 N.W.2d 903 (1968); Soronen v. Olde Milford Inn, 84 N.J.Super. 372, 202 A.2d 208 (1964), rev'd on other grounds, 46 N.J. 582, 218 A.2d 630 (1966); Majors v. Brodhead Hotel, 416 Pa. 265, 205 A.2d 873 (1965). See also 45 Am.Jur.2d, Intoxicating Liquors § 588, p. 879; 48 C.J.S., Intoxicating Liquors § 446, p. 724. This rule was inferentially recognized by our decision in Berge v. Harris, 170 N.W. 2d 621, 625 (Iowa 1969) where we said, The authorities cited by plaintiff in support of her contention hold contributory negligence is no defense to an action under the dramshop act as such action is based on the breach of a statutory duty and does not require a showing of negligence. (citing cases) The same line of cases recognizes the equally well established rule of complicity   . (Emphasis added.) The Iowa Supreme Court has declined to hold a common-law tort liability arises out of a sale of intoxicating liquor. Cowman v. Hansen, 250 Iowa 358, 92 N.W.2d 682 (1958). Dram shop statutes impose strict liability, without negligence, upon the seller. W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 81, p. 538 (4th ed. 1971). The ordinary concepts of proximate cause are not strictly applied. Lee v. Hederman, 158 Iowa 719, 138 N.W. 893 (1912); Bistline v. Ney Bros., 134 Iowa 172, 111 N.W. 422 (1907). Similarly, we now hold the stereotype contributory negligence defense has no application. Affirmed. All Justices concur, except McCORMICK, J., who takes no part.