Opinion ID: 2513957
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Class harmed by the legislative classification

Text: [ถ 85] In reaching the result it does, the majority relies heavily on the assertion that the classification must be identified within the text of the challenged statute. This assertion is incorrect. Under proper equal protection analysis, a classification can be established one of three ways: First, a law may establish a classification on its face requiring no proof of the classification other than the language of the statute itself. Second, a law, which on its face shows no impermissible classification, may be impermissibly applied in varying degrees to different identifiable classes of individuals. When application of a law is at issue, proof beyond the language of the law is required to establish the classification that is challenged. Finally, a law that neither classifies on its face nor is applied unevenly may nonetheless be shown by outside proof to in reality constitute a device designed to impose different burdens on different classes of persons. Nowak, Rotunda, and Young, Constitutional Law, ch. 16 at 527 (1978). Laude, 654 P.2d at 1226. Thus, a classification can be shown: (1) from the language of the statute itself, (2) by the manner in which the statute is applied, or (3) by outside proof that the statute in fact is designed to impose different burdens on different classes of people. The statute at issue creates impermissible classifications in all three ways. On its face, as applied and as shown by outside proof, ง 12-8-301 specifically treats individuals injured as a result of liquor vendor negligence occurring in the drive-in area differently than those injured as a result of inside-the-premises liquor vendor negligence. On its face, as applied and as shown by outside proof, the statute also treats liquor vendors who negligently sell in the drive-in area differently than other liquor vendors. The end result of the classifications is that liquor vendors may be accountable for furnishing liquor to an intoxicated person in a drive-in area but cannot be held accountable for furnishing liquor to the same intoxicated person inside the premises. To the same effect, an injured victim has no right to recover if the intoxicated person was served inside the premises but can recover if the person was served in the drive-in area. Stated differently, a person injured by an intoxicated person who was negligently provided alcohol in a drive-in area has the right to seek a portion of his damages from the alcohol provider, whereas a person injured by the same intoxicated person who was served negligently inside the establishment does not. [ถ 86] The majority attempts to avoid this result by looking at only the face of the statute, drawing the classification narrowly by looking exclusively at liquor vendors, and ignoring the classes harmed by the statute. This is not proper equal protection analysis under our precedent, which requires consideration of the class harmed by the legislation. Johnson, 838 P.2d at 166. Narrow formulation of a statutory classification does not avoid the requirements of the equal protection clause. See generally Tussman & tenBroek, supra, 37 Cal. L.Rev. at 346-351, 360. [ถ 87] In Hoem, we considered a similar classification of tort victims who had their right to recover for negligence diminished medical malpractice tort victims. We held a statute creating the Wyoming Medical Review Panel Act violated those victims' equal protection rights. The act created a panel to review all medical malpractice claims against health care providers before such claims could be pursued in court. 756 P.2d at 782. The plaintiff in Hoem argued the act treated medical malpractice victims differently than those injured by the tortious conduct of someone other than a health care provider in that only medical malpractice victims were prohibited from filing a claim directly in court for personal injury. Id. Ultimately, we held the Wyoming Medical Review Panel Act denied medical malpractice victims equal protection of the law. Id. at 784. Our review revealed the legislature's purpose was to reduce the number of medical malpractice lawsuits and lower insurance rates. Id. at 783. Although we agreed the legislature had a legitimate interest in protecting the health of the citizens of Wyoming as well as the economic and social stability of the state, we held: It cannot seriously be contended that the extension of special benefits to the medical profession and the imposition of an additional hurdle in the path of medical malpractice victims relate to the protection of the public health. Id. We have reviewed similar statutes by focusing on the classification of tort victims created. See Mills, 837 P.2d at 53; Hoem, 756 P.2d at 783; Nehring, 582 P.2d at 77. [ถ 88] In Hoem, this Court made it clear that the equal protection violation was found in the disparity in treatment of injured persons, some of whom were required to submit their cases to the medical review panel while others did not encounter that impediment in pursuing their claims. We said: We cannot condone the legislature's use of the law to protect one class of people from financial difficulties while it dilutes the rights under the constitution of another class of people. Hoem, 756 P.2d at 784. As with the statute we struck down in Hoem, ง 12-8-301 results in disparity in treatment in that it protects one class of people (liquor vendors who negligently sell to intoxicated persons inside the liquor establishment) while diluting the rights of another class of people (those injured as a result of the negligent sale inside the premises).