Opinion ID: 2066301
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the history of alcohol-related liability

Text: The historic common law rule, adhered to in this State, is that there is no cause of action for injuries arising out of the sale or gift of alcoholic beverages. The rationale underlying the rule is that the drinking of the intoxicant, not the furnishing of it, is the proximate cause of the intoxication and the resulting injury. (See Cunningham v. Brown (1961), 22 Ill.2d 23, 29-30, 174 N.E.2d 153.) As a matter of public policy, the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is considered as too remote to serve as the proximate cause of the injury. As set forth later in this opinion, our courts have consistently adhered to the rule that there is no common law cause of action against any provider of alcoholic beverages for injuries arising out of the sale or gift of such beverages. The Illinois legislature, however, created a limited statutory cause of action when it enacted the original Dramshop Act of 1872 in response to a great wave of temperance reform that swept the nation. ( Cunningham, 22 Ill.2d at 27, 174 N.E.2d 153, quoting 4 Bogart & Thompson, A Centennial History of Illinois 42-44 (1920).) The original act imposed liability upon dramshops for selling or giving intoxicating liquors to persons who subsequently injure third parties. (Laws of 1871-72, at 552-56.) The present act, titled the Liquor Control Act of 1934 (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 43, par. 93.9 et seq. (now 235 ILCS 5/1-1 et seq. (West 1992))) grants a similar cause of action to injured third parties (Ill.Rev.Stat.1991, ch. 43, par. 135 (now 235 ILCS 5/6-21 (West 1992))). (Section 6-21 is commonly known as the Dramshop Act and will hereinafter be referred to as such.) The Dramshop Act has never imposed liability predicated on negligence or fault; rather, it imposes a form of no-fault liability. ( Nelson v. Araiza (1978), 69 Ill.2d 534, 538-39, 14 Ill.Dec. 441, 372 N.E.2d 637.) This court has interpreted the Dramshop Act as not imposing liability upon social hosts. Cruse v. Aden (1889), 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73, is the seminal decision regarding both the common law rule and the absence of social host liability under the Dramshop Act. There, a wife filed suit against a friend of her husband. The friend had given her husband two drinks of intoxicating liquor while he was a guest at the friend's home. The husband, upon returning home on horseback, was thrown from the horse and died. The wife argued that a common law right of action existed before the Dramshop Act of 1872 was enacted, and that the Dramshop Act simply saved and even enlarged the remedies already available. The Cruse court expressly rejected these notions, stating: It was not a tort, at common law, to either sell or give intoxicating liquor to `a strong and able-bodied man,' and it can be said safely, that it is not anywhere laid down in the books that such act was ever held, at common law, to be culpable negligence, that would impose legal liability for damages upon the vendor or donor of such liquor. The present suit can in no sense be regarded as an action of tort at common law. Cruse, 127 Ill. at 234, 20 N.E. 73. The Cruse court therefore concluded that any cause of action the wife had was purely statutory, wholly dependent upon the proper construction of the Dramshop Act. ( Cruse, 127 Ill. at 234, 20 N.E. 73.) The court held that the Dramshop Act only created a cause of action against those engaged in the liquor trade. ( Cruse, 127 Ill. at 239, 20 N.E. 73.) No cause of action was intended to be given against a person who, in his own house, or elsewhere, gives a glass of intoxicating liquor to a friend as a mere act of courtesy and politeness. ( Cruse, 127 Ill. at 239, 20 N.E. 73.) Cruse therefore laid down the rule that no social host liability exists under the common law or the Dramshop Act.
Many years later, in Howlett v. Doglio (1949), 402 Ill. 311, 83 N.E.2d 708, this court reaffirmed its holdings in Cruse. The Howlett court further explained that the liability imposed under the Dramshop Act is of statutory origin, and is expressly and exclusively defined therein. Howlett, 402 Ill. at 318, 83 N.E.2d 708. Cunningham v. Brown (1961), 22 Ill.2d 23, 174 N.E.2d 153. then firmly established the rule of law that, in Illinois, the General Assembly has preempted the entire field of alcohol-related liability through its passage and continual amendment of the Dramshop Act. There, the plaintiff's filed suit against tavern operators who had served intoxicants to their husband and father, who thereafter became despondent and took his own life. The plaintiffs argued that, in addition to a claim under the Dramshop Act, the following remedies were available to them: (1) a civil action for a violation of a section of the Liquor Control Act that prohibited the sale, gift or delivery of alcoholic liquor `to any intoxicated person or to any person known    to be an habitual drunkard, spendthrift, insane, mentally ill, mentally deficient or in need of mental treatment' ( Cunningham, 22 Ill.2d at 24, 174 N.E.2d 153, quoting Ill.Rev.Stat.1957, ch. 43, par. 131); and (2) a common law action against tavern operators who knowingly supply intoxicating liquor to a consumer who has no volition with regard to consuming the intoxicant. The plaintiffs' contention was that this court should recognize a new cause of action where a tavern operator sells liquor to an already intoxicated or insane person. In these instances, the plaintiffs maintained, the incapacity of the consumer to choose is known to the vendor and, therefore, the sale of the liquor in reality becomes the proximate cause of the intoxication. The Cunningham court rejected all the plaintiffs' arguments and refused to create any cause of action beyond those explicitly provided for in the Dramshop Act. ( Cunningham, 22 Ill.2d at 30-31, 174 N.E.2d 153.) It held that the Dramshop Act provides the exclusive remedy against tavern owners and operators for alcohol-induced injuries. Cunningham, 22 Ill.2d at 30-31, 174 N.E.2d 153. Since Cunningham, this court has frequently reiterated the rule that a dramshop cause of action is sui generis and exclusive. ( Hopkins v. Powers (1986), 113 Ill.2d 206, 211, 100 Ill.Dec. 579, 497 N.E.2d 757; Wimmer v. Koenigseder (1985), 108 Ill.2d 435, 440-44, 92 Ill.Dec. 233, 484 N.E.2d 1088; Demchuk v. Duplancich (1982), 92 Ill.2d 1, 5, 64 Ill.Dec. 560, 440 N.E.2d 112; Graham v. General U.S. Grant Post No. 2665 (1969), 43 Ill.2d 1, 7, 248 N.E.2d 657.) Accordingly, this court has consistently refused to recognize any cause of action for alcohol-related liability beyond those explicitly provided for in the Dramshop Act. ( Wimmer, 108 Ill.2d at 440-44, 92 Ill.Dec. 233, 484 N.E.2d 1088; Graham, 43 Ill.2d at 8, 248 N.E.2d 657; Knierim v. Izzo (1961), 22 Ill.2d 73, 76-77, 79, 174 N.E.2d 157; Cunningham, 22 Ill.2d 23, 174 N.E.2d 153; Cruse, 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73.) In doing so, this court has rejected all theories of liability advanced by plaintiffs, including those based upon the Dramshop Act itself, upon common law negligence, or upon certain prohibited sales and activities within the Liquor Control Act of 1934. Wimmer, 108 Ill.2d 435, 92 Ill.Dec. 233, 484 N.E.2d 1088 (rejecting theories based upon the common law and the Dramshop Act); Graham, 43 Ill.2d 1, 248 N.E.2d 657 (rejecting theories based upon the Dramshop Act and the common law); Knierim, 22 Ill.2d 73, 174 N.E.2d 157 (rejecting theories based upon certain prohibited sales in the Liquor Control Act and the common law); Cunningham, 22 Ill.2d 23, 174 N.E.2d 153 (same); Cruse, 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73 (rejecting theories based upon the common law and the Dramshop Act). As a result, few rules of law are as clear as that no liability for the sale or gift of alcoholic beverages exists in Illinois outside of the Dramshop Act. Our appellate court has generally adhered to this fundamental rule and has declined to create a new cause of action, regardless of whether the case involved adults, underage persons, or minors; liquor vendors or social hosts. See, e.g., Estate of Ritchie v. Farrell (1991), 213 Ill. App.3d 846, 157 Ill.Dec. 298, 572 N.E.2d 367 (social host furnished alcohol to a minor); Goodknight v. Piraino (1990), 197 Ill.App.3d 319, 143 Ill.Dec. 208, 554 N.E.2d 1 (vendor allowed alcohol to be furnished to an underage person); Flory v. Weaver (1990), 196 Ill.App.3d 149, 142 Ill.Dec. 755, 553 N.E.2d 105 (social host furnished alcohol to minors); Martin v. Palazzolo Produce Co. (1986), 146 Ill.App.3d 1084, 100 Ill.Dec. 703, 497 N.E.2d 881 (social host furnished alcohol to a minor); Zamiar v. Linderman (1985), 132 Ill.App.3d 886, 88 Ill.Dec. 219, 478 N.E.2d 534 (social host furnished alcohol to a minor); Heldt v. Brei (1983), 118 Ill.App.3d 798, 74 Ill.Dec. 413, 455 N.E.2d 842 (social hosts permitted son to serve alcohol to friends); Thompson v. Trickle (1983), 114 Ill.App.3d 930, 70 Ill.Dec. 563, 449 N.E.2d 910 (social host furnished alcohol to an adult); Ruth v. Benvenutti (1983), 114 Ill.App.3d 404, 70 Ill.Dec. 335, 449 N.E.2d 209 (vendor sold alcohol to a minor); Coulter v. Swearingen (1983), 113 Ill.App.3d 650, 69 Ill.Dec. 344, 447 N.E.2d 561 (minor social host furnished alcohol to a minor); Gora v. 7-11 Food Stores (1982), 109 Ill. App.3d 109, 64 Ill.Dec. 727, 440 N.E.2d 279 (vendor sold alcohol to a minor); Lowe v. Rubin (1981), 98 Ill.App.3d 496, 53 Ill.Dec. 919, 424 N.E.2d 710 (social host furnished alcohol to a minor); Miller v. Moran (1981), 96 Ill.App.3d 596, 52 Ill.Dec. 183, 421 N.E.2d 1046 (social hosts furnished alcohol to an adult); Camille v. Berry Fertilizers, Inc. (1975), 30 Ill.App.3d 1050, 334 N.E.2d 205 (social host furnished alcohol to an adult); Shepherd v. Marsaglia (1961), 31 Ill.App.2d 379, 176 N.E.2d 473 (vendors sold alcohol to an underage person); see also Fitzpatrick v. Carde Lounge, Ltd. (1992), 234 Ill.App.3d 875, 176 Ill.Dec. 712, 602 N.E.2d 19 (vendors sold alcohol to a minor). But see Cravens v. Inman (1991), 223 Ill.App.3d 1059, 166 Ill. Dec. 409, 586 N.E.2d 367; Colligan v. Cousar (1963), 38 Ill.App.2d 392, 187 N.E.2d 292 (discovering a common law cause of action for furnishing liquor to an intoxicated person), overruled by Wimmer v. Koenigseder (1985), 108 Ill.2d 435, 442, 92 Ill.Dec. 233, 484 N.E.2d 1088. The plaintiffs in the present appeal now ask us to recognize a common law cause of action where a social host serves alcoholic beverages to a minor. In this situation, the plaintiffs maintain, the incapacity of the minor to perceive and protect oneself from the harm associated with consuming intoxicants is known to the social host. Therefore, the furnishing of the liquor is the proximate cause of the intoxication and the injury. The premise of their argument is that minors are a protected class, as the law recognizes their incapability to understand the consequences of consuming alcoholic beverages by forbidding it. The plaintiffs' argument fails. All binding precedent on the subject teaches us that the General Assembly has preempted the entire field of alcohol-related liability through its passage and continual amendment of the Dramshop Act. ( Hopkins, 113 Ill.2d 206, 100 Ill.Dec. 579, 497 N.E.2d 757; Wimmer, 108 Ill.2d 435, 92 Ill.Dec. 233, 484 N.E.2d 1088; Demchuk, 92 Ill.2d 1, 64 Ill. Dec. 560, 440 N.E.2d 112; Graham, 43 Ill.2d 1, 248 N.E.2d 657; Cunningham, 22 Ill.2d 23, 174 N.E.2d 153; Howlett, 402 Ill. 311, 83 N.E.2d 708; Cruse, 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73.) We are persuaded that the prior decisions of this court are correct and control the appeal sub judice. Legislative preemption in the field of alcohol-related liability extends to social hosts who provide alcoholic beverages to another person, whether that person be an adult, an underage person, or a minor. Therefore, the plaintiffs have no cause of action against their social hosts, as the Dramshop Act does not provide for one.