Court Opinion

ID: 9534602
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:41:19.21082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:31:58.403541
License: Public Domain

ALMA WILSON, Justice,
dissenting:
Oklahoma is a notice pleading jurisdiction. The plaintiff/appellant (Sanders) is required to set forth a short and plain statement of her claim so as to give defendants/appellees fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. 12 O.S. 1991, § 2008 and Niemeyer v. U.S. Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 789 P.2d 1318, 1320 (Okla.1990). “In assessing the sufficiency *1065of the petition, the general rule is that a petition should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim_” [Emphasis added.] Niemeyer, 789 P.2d at 1321.
Sanders sued the defendants/appellees, retailers of 3.2% beer, for injury allegedly caused by the wrongful selling of beer to a minor. The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, to allow Sanders an opportunity to prove the alleged tortious conduct of the retailers and the cause of her injuries. Notwithstanding the early pre-trial procedural posture of this cause, the majority holds that the causal connection between Sanders’ injury and the unlawful sale of beer by the retailers is too remote and affirms the trial court dismissal.
The selling of nonintoxicating beverages to any person under twenty-one (21) years of age is unlawful and a violation of 37 O.S.1991, § 241.1 Sanders alleged that the retailers violated § 241; that the retailers’ violation of § 241 caused her injury; and, that § 241 was enacted to prevent her injury. These allegations are sufficient to state a negligence claim against the retailers. Hampton v. Hammons, 743 P.2d 1053 (Okla.1987) and Boyles v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 619 P.2d 613 (Okla.1980). I agree with the Court of Appeals. The trial court erred in dismissing Sanders’ petition for failure to state a claim for relief for injury allegedly caused by violations of the 3.2% beer laws.2
Appellate review of the factual chain of causation of injury is premature. The appellate record provides no evidentiary basis for this Court’s conclusion that the retailer’s unlawful sale of beer is too remote in file chain of causation of Sanders’ injury. The trial court’s dismissal of Sanders’ claim should be reversed and this case should be remanded for further proceedings. Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.

. 37 O.S.Supp.1985, § 241 is applicable in this case. Although § 241 has been amended, the applicable provisions remain the same in the 1991 codification.

. The majority opinion finds support in the statutory definition of 3.2% beer as a non-intoxicating beverage. Section 241 imposes the legal duty to refrain from selling to a minor upon the retailer of 3.2% beer, notwithstanding the “prohibition era” technical distinction between intoxicating and non-intoxicating beverages. For a more complete discussion of the duties imposed and protections afforded by our statutory liquor laws see, Ohio Casualty Insurance Co. v. Todd, 813 P.2d 508, (Okla.1991), concurring in part, dissenting in part opinion by Lavender, J., at 521-524, and dissenting opinion by Alma Wilson, J., at 524-526.