Opinion ID: 1969579
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Dram Shop Cases Analogous Precedents

Text: The operation of motor vehicles and the distribution of alcohol beverages are two activities that are highly regulated by statute in Delaware. Although this Court has never been called upon to address a common-law claim for education malpractice, it has considered both direct and third-party common-law theories of Dram Shop liability. [10] Samson v. Smith, Del.Supr., 560 A.2d 1024 (1989); Wright v. Moffitt, Del.Supr., 437 A.2d 554 (1981). Accordingly, this Court's analysis in Dram Shop cases is instructive in determining whether Plaintiffs assert a cognizable third-party common-law claim for educational malpractice in this case. In Wright, an intoxicated patron brought suit against the tavern that had served him alcoholic beverages. After leaving the tavern, the intoxicated patron was struck by an automobile. In Wright, the plaintiff argued that this Court should recognize a direct common-law Dram Shop cause of action, as part of our historic function of developing the law in light of the circumstances in which an issue arises. Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d at 555. This Court acknowledged the judicial role and responsibility in developing the common law. We explained, however, that historically, Delaware's jurisprudence recognized that the General Assembly had assumed the statutory power and responsibility of licensing and regulating the sale of alcoholic beverages for the benefit of public use. This Court concluded that the creation of a cause of action against one who is licensed to sell alcoholic beverages ... involves public policy considerations which can best be considered by the General Assembly. Id. at 556. Accordingly, in Wright, this Court held there was no common-law right to bring a direct cause of action on the theory of Dram Shop liability. Id. In Samson, this Court declined to recognize a common-law cause of action against a tavern operator for injuries to a third party caused by an intoxicated patron. In Samson, an intoxicated patron left a bowling establishment where he had consumed eight beers in a three and one-half hour period. Shortly after leaving the establishment, he failed to stop at a red light and his vehicle struck another vehicle. The driver of the other automobile, who sustained serious bodily injury, brought suit against the intoxicated driver and the establishment where the intoxicated driver had been drinking. On appeal, this Court affirmed the Superior Court's judgment, holding that there is no common-law cause of action against a tavern operator by a third party, who is injured off the premises of the tavern by a patron who became intoxicated at the tavern. Samson v. Smith, 560 A.2d at 1025. In Samson, this Court relied upon its prior decision in Wright, stating: `[I]n our view, the General Assembly is in a far better position than this Court to gather the empirical data and to make the fact finding necessary to determine what the public policy should be as to a Dram Shop law, and the scope of any such law.' Id. at 1027 (quoting Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d at 556.) This Court has consistently adhered to this reasoning, most recently stating: The essential rationale underlying [the Dram Shop] line of cases is that the determination of whether to impose liability on tavern owners for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons involves significant public policy considerations and is best left to the General Assembly. McCall v. Villa Pizza, Inc., Del.Supr., 636 A.2d 912, 913 (1994).