Court Opinion

ID: 9698869
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 20:02:00.883371+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:44.254722
License: Public Domain

Per Curiam.
On January 11, 1970, plaintiff suffered injuries when his automobile was struck by a truck driven by John Smith. On December 22, 1971, plaintiff commenced suit against the third-party defendants under the dramshop act, MCL *293436.22; MSA 18.993. The defendant herein, the surety upon the third-party defendants’ liquor bond, was not a party to that action.
On April 2, 1975, a consent judgment was entered against the third-party defendants. On June 14, 1976, plaintiff instituted the present action against the defendant in reliance on the consent judgment and the defendants’ surety bond, which was in full force and effect on the date of the accident.
Defendant moved for accelerated judgment asserting that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the two-year period of limitations contained in the dramshop act. The motion was denied. Plaintiff thereafter moved for summary judgment alleging the existence of the unlawful sale, the surety bond and the consent judgment and asserting that, based thereon, there existed no question of fact to be .resolved. Defendant brings this appeal as a matter of right from the order granting plaintiff’s motion. GCR 1963, 806.1.
MCL 436.22; MSA 18.993 provides in relevant part:
"Every * * * [person] * * * who shall be injured * * * by a visibly intoxicated person by reason of the unlawful selling, giving or furnishing * * * any intoxicating liquor, and the sale is proven to be a proximate cause of the injury or death, shall have a right of action * * * against the person who shall by such selling * * * have caused or contributed to the intoxication * * * or who shall have caused or contributed to any such injury, and the principal and sureties to any bond given under this law shall be liable, severally and jointly, with the person or persons selling, giving or furnishing any * * * intoxicating * * * liquors * * *. Any action shall he instituted within 2 years after the happening of the event and all factual defenses open to the alleged intoxicated person * * * shall be open and available to *294the principal and surety * * *. Such damages together with the costs of suit shall be recovered in an action of trespass on the case before any court of competent jurisdiction,” (Emphasis supplied.)
The question before us is whether the two-year limitations period applies to an injured party’s cause of action against a liquor bond surety when the plaintiff has timely commenced suit against the principal. To answer this question we must ascertain the nature of the action against the surety.
The dramshop act creates a statutory cause of action unknown to the common law. Koehler v DRT Sportservice, Inc, 55 Mich App 567; 223 NW2d 461 (1974). Under the statute, there exists a direct cause of action against the liquor bond surety, Scahill v Aetna Indemnity Co, 157 Mich 310; 122 NW 78 (1909), which is an action of trespass on the case, not an action in debt on the bond. The bond is not the foundation of the action. Squires v Miller, 173 Mich 304, 312; 138 NW 1062 (1912). The action against the surety accrues at once upon the unlawful furnishing of intoxicants by the principal. Anthony v Krey, 70 Mich 629, 632; 38 NW 603 (1888). The period of limitations begins to run at that time.
In the present case, the unlawful sale of intoxicants and the resulting accident occurred on January 11, 197Ó. The two-year limitations period began to run as of that date. Plaintiff did not commence his action against the defendant until June 14, 1976, approximately 6-1/2 years after the date of the injury and approximately 4-1/2 years after the expiration of the two-year period. Having failed to commence the action against the defendant timely, plaintiff’s claim is barred. The denial *295of defendant’s motion for accelerated judgment was reversibly erroneous.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, plaintiff contends that he has a remedy against the surety on the bond independent of the provisions of the dramshop act. We do not agree. The dramshop act affords the exclusive remedy for injuries arising out of the unlawful furnishing of intoxicants. Manuel v Weitzman, 386 Mich 157, 164-165; 191 NW2d 474 (1971).
Reversed and remanded. Costs to appellant.