Opinion ID: 2654309
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: Where injuries are proximately caused by excess alcohol consumption, our Legislature has carefully balanced the interests involved and settled on a rule generally precluding liability for those who provide alcoholic beverages, on the ground that “the consumption of alcoholic beverages rather than the serving of alcoholic beverages [is] the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.” (§ 25602, subd. (c).) Specifically addressing the potential liability of social hosts, the Legislature has provided that “no social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person may be held legally accountable for damages suffered by that person, or for injury to the person or property of, or death of, any third person, resulting from the consumption of those beverages.” (Civ. Code, § 1714, subd. (c).) But the Legislature has also established some narrow exceptions to this broad civil immunity, one of which is potentially applicable here: liability may attach because plaintiff alleges facts suggesting that defendant Manosa was a “person who [sold], or cause[d] to be sold, any alcoholic beverage, to any obviously intoxicated minor.” (§ 25602.1.) A “sale” of alcohol, in turn, is defined as “any transaction” for “any consideration.” (§ 23025.) Because the facts, read in a light most favorable to plaintiffs (Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., supra, 49 Cal.4th at p. 764), support the conclusion Manosa is a person who sold alcoholic beverages to Garcia, a minor who was obviously intoxicated, and Garcia’s intoxication was the proximate cause of Andrew Ennabe’s death, she is potentially liable under section 25602.1, and the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in defendant’s favor. 32 The decision of the Court of Appeal is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings consistent with our opinion. WERDEGAR, J. WE CONCUR: CANTIL-SAKAUYE, C. J. KENNARD, J. BAXTER, J. CHIN, J. CORRIGAN, J. LIU, J. 33 See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. Name of Opinion Ennabe v. Manosa __________________________________________________________________________________ Unpublished Opinion Original Appeal Original Proceeding Review Granted XXX 190 Cal.App.4th 707 Rehearing Granted __________________________________________________________________________________ Opinion No. S189577 Date Filed: February 24, 2014 __________________________________________________________________________________ Court: Superior County: Los Angeles Judge: Robert A. Dukes __________________________________________________________________________________ Counsel: Innabi Law Group, Abdalla J. Innabi and Amer Innabi for Plaintiffs and Appellants. The Arkin Law Firm and Sharon J. Arkin for Consumer Attorneys of California as Amicus Curiae on behalf of Plaintiffs and Appellants. Morris, Polich & Purdy, Richard H. Nakamura, Jr., Dean A. Olson and Sheena Y. Kwon for Defendants and Respondents. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Susan Duncan Lee, Acting State Solicitor General, Alicia M. B. Fowler, Assistant Attorney General, and Jerald L. Mosley, Deputy Attorney General, for Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control as Amicus Curiae, upon the request of the Supreme Court. Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): Abdalla J. Innabi Innabi Law Group 2500 E. Colorado Blvd., Suite 230 Pasadena, CA 91107 (626) 395-9555 Richard H. Nakamura, Jr. Morris, Polich & Purdy 1055 West Seventh Street, 24th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017-2503 (213) 891-9100 2