Court Opinion

ID: 9693451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:42:02.093747+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:46.361919
License: Public Domain

Davidson, J.,

dissenting:

The majority here states:
"Of course, the common law is not static. Its life and heart is its dynamism — its ability to keep pace with the world while constantly searching for just and fair solutions to pressing societal problems like that presented by the senseless carnage occurring on our highways, due in no small measure to the drinking driver. The common law is, therefore, subject to modification by judicial decision in light of changing conditions or increased knowledge where *185this Court finds that it is a vestige of the past, no longer suitable to the circumstances of our people.
"Although empowered to change common law rules in light of changed conditions, the Court has always recognized that declaration of public policy is normally the function of the legislative branch of government. The Court has therefore declined to alter a common law rule in the face of indications that to do so would be contrary to the public policy of the State, as declared by the General Assembly of Maryland.... The absence of any statute in Maryland creating a civil cause of action in such circumstances prompted the Court in Hatfíeld to conclude that the legislature did not intend to impose civil liability upon alcoholic beverage vendors for the tortious acts of their intoxicated customers. This state of the statutory law of Maryland has remained unchanged since Hatfield was decided thirty years ago.
"Therefore, since the legislature has not yet created dram shop liability by statute, we decline, for now, to join the new trend of cases initiated by Waynick and Rappaport.” (Citations omitted) (emphasis added).
Manifestly, the majority has concluded that legislative inaction establishes and constitutes an affirmative legislative declaration of public policy that precludes this Court from altering an outmoded common law rule. Yet this Court has repeatedly and consistently recognized that nonaction by the Legislature, after an adverse court decision, "affords the most dubious foundation for drawing positive inferences.” See, e.g., Automobile Trade Ass’n of Maryland, Inc. v. Insurance Comm’r of Maryland, 292 Md. 15, 24, 437 A.2d 199,203 (1981); Police Comm’r of Baltimore City v. Dowling, 281 Md. 412, 420-21, 379 A.2d 1007, 1012 (1977); Harden v. Mass Transit Admin., 211 Md. 399, 406, 354 A.2d 817, 821 *186(1976); Hearst Corp. v. State Dept. of Assessments & Taxation, 269 Md. 625, 645, 308 A.2d 679, 689 (1973). In the absence of any statute either authorizing or prohibiting civil damage actions against licensed vendors of intoxicating liquors for the tortious acts of minor or intoxicated patrons to whom they sell alcoholic beverages, I am unable to conclude, as does the majority, that the Legislature has declared that it is the public policy of this State to prohibit such actions. Under these circumstances, I do not feel constrained to join with my colleagues in their effort to once again perpetuate the past. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
In my view, it is common knowledge that the problems associated with drunk driving have presently reached massive proportions. Just and fair solutions additional to those presently existing are required if societal interests are to be protected and preserved. As the majority itself notes, in the 30 years since Hatfíeld, courts in a majority of other jurisdictions that have considered the problem "have departed from the early common law rule and have imposed civil liability, independent of statute, upon sellers of alcoholic beverages for damages caused by their intoxicated patrons.” In light of changing conditions, I, like these other courts, am convinced that the common law rule has become unsound in the circumstances of modern life. I would hold that a cause of action exists against licensed vendors of intoxicating liquors for the tortious acts of minor or intoxicated patrons to whom they sell alcoholic beverages in violation of Maryland Code (1957, 1981 Repl. Vol.), Art. 2B, § 118 (a). Accordingly, I would reverse and remand.