Opinion ID: 2609904
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The effect of criminal statutes

Text: The common-law rule of non-liability was based on either a lack of causation or a lack of duty. The existence of a statute criminalizing conduct is one aspect of Arizona law supporting the recognition of duty in this cause of action. Like other states, [9] Arizona has a statute making it a criminal offense to furnish alcohol to a minor. A.R.S. § 4-244(9). A criminal statute may establish a tort duty if the statute is designed to protect the class of persons, in which the plaintiff is included, against the risk of the type of harm which has in fact occurred as a result of its violation.... W. PAGE KEETON ET AL., PROSSER AND KEETON ON THE LAW OF TORTS § 36, at 229-30 (5th ed. 1984). We have previously relied on § 4-244 to sustain a cause of action against those who furnish alcohol to minors. We believe that A.R.S. § 4-244(9) ... constitute[s] legislative recognition of the foreseeable danger to both the patron and third parties, and an effort to meet that danger by enactment of laws designed to regulate the industry, to protect third persons, and to protect those who are underage from themselves. Brannigan, 136 Ariz. at 517, 667 P.2d at 217. Although Brannigan addressed licensee liability, § 4-244(9) makes it a crime for anyone to furnish alcohol to a minor. We believe the rationale of Brannigan is certainly broad enough to apply to the facts of this case. [10] Here, as in Ontiveros and Brannigan, we find Defendants' violation of the statute further supports a civil cause of action. These provisions are not new. The statutory prohibition against furnishing alcohol to a minor is long settled in Arizona. It was a crime as early as 1887. Every person who shall directly or indirectly, knowingly ... give away any intoxicating liquor to any minor ... without the consent of [the minor's] guardian or parent, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, ... Arizona Penal Code § 514 (1887); see also Arizona Penal Code § 270 (1901) (adopting the same ban). Based on past and present statutes, we see no constriction of the duty of social hosts under the facts of this case.