Opinion ID: 2609858
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The dram shop immunity statute

Text: The next arguably relevant statute, A.R.S. § 4-312(B), [2] provides, in relevant part: [E]xcept as provided in § 4-311, a person, firm, corporation or licensee is not liable in damages to any person who is injured, or to the survivors of any person killed, or for damage to property which is alleged to have been caused in whole or in part by reason of the sale, furnishing or serving of spirituous liquor. (Emphasis added.) Defendants contend that because they are not liable as provided in § 4-311, the terms of § 4-312(B) apply to grant licensees immunity from suit under any other set of circumstances. This, indeed, was the trial court's result. We disagree. Under § 4-312(B), there is no liability by reason of the sale, furnishing or serving of spirituous liquor. Although this language is admittedly broader than the sold to a purchaser language used in § 4-311, [3] it still does not contemplate the taking of alcohol. Although we do not attempt to determine the statute's ultimate reach by parsing the operative phrases, it is clear that whatever their semantic significance, Plaintiffs do not charge Defendants with selling, furnishing, or serving liquor to Mattox. In essence, they claim that, with notice of the danger, Defendants negligently gave Mattox the opportunity to steal the liquor or failed to prevent him from doing so. As we said in Estate of Hernandez, § 4-312(B) protects from liability only licensees and their associates while conducting a transaction permitted under a license for the sale, furnishing, or serving of alcohol. 177 Ariz. at 252, 866 P.2d at 1338. Thus, we conclude that Arizona's social host and dram shop legislation does not apply to the present facts. Rather, this cause of action must stand or fall on basic common-law negligence principles. Having concluded that the statutes neither impose liability nor grant immunity in this case, we now turn to the common-law issues briefed and decided in the court of appeals. Petolicchio, 172 Ariz. at 590, 838 P.2d at 1351.