Court Opinion

ID: 9524341
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:51:56.533083+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:36.011414
License: Public Domain

Hastings, C.J.
The plaintiff has appealed the judgment of the district court which dismissed his petition after sustaining the defendant’s demurrer. Plaintiff asks that we impose dramshop liability by judicial fiat.
*730Plaintiff’s amended petition alleged that on March 13,1986, he was involved in an automobile accident in which a Robert Wondra suddenly swerved his oncoming vehicle into the path of plaintiff’s automobile, resulting in a collision and injuries to the plaintiff. It was further alleged that Wondra was intoxicated at the time of the collision and that the defendant, doing business as Señor Matías Restaurant and Lounge, caused and contributed to Wondra’s intoxication by selling him alcohol when defendant knew or should have known that Wondra was intoxicated and would pose an unreasonable risk to other drivers and pedestrians.
This court considered the issue of dramshop liability in Holmes v. Circo, 196 Neb. 496, 244 N.W.2d 65 (1976). In that case, the court specifically declined to judicially create dramshop liability in Nebraska:
[I]n the final analysis, the controlling considerations are public policy and whether the court or the Legislature should declare it. We believe that the decision should be left to the Legislature. The Legislature may hold hearings, debate the relevant policy considerations, weigh the testimony, and, in the event it determines a change in the law is necessary or desirable, it can then draft statutes which would most adequately meet the needs of the public in general, while balancing the interest of specific sectors.
Id. at 505, 244 N.W.2d at 70. To date, the Legislature has not adopted liability for tavern owners, nor has this court changed its position on the issue since Holmes was decided in 1976. See, e.g., Strong v. K & K Investments, 216 Neb. 370, 343 N.W.2d 912 (1984).
Plaintiff raises several important considerations and excellent policy reasons in support of dramshop liability. He further argues that for the court to impose dramshop liability would be no different from our decision to abolish governmental immunity for tort liability, which was accomplished without the intervention of the Legislature. See Brown v. City of Omaha, 183 Neb. 430, 160 N.W.2d 805 (1968). The same may be said for negligent entrustment, Deck v. Sherlock, 162 Neb. 86, 75 N.W.2d 99 (1956), and the abolishment of interspousal tort immunity, Imig v. March, 203 *731Neb. 537, 279 N.W.2d 382 (1979). However, the Legislature previously had not addressed those issues.
That is not true as to dramshop liability. A dramshop act was enacted by the Legislature in 1881 and appeared as Rev. Stat. §§ 3859 through 3863 (1913). It was repealed in 1917 and replaced with wholly new dramshop provisions. See 1917 Neb. Laws, ch. 187, § 52, p. 448. In 1935, another new act, the Nebraska Liquor Control Act, Comp. Stat. §§ 53-301 to 53-3,107 (Supp. 1935), was passed, which, among other things, repealed the provisions of the statutes relating to dramshop liability. The Legislature has not seen fit to reenact such provisions. When the Legislature has spoken, it is not up to this court to disagree with its decision on a purely policy basis.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.