Court Opinion

ID: 9860779
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:32:34.892993+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:26:40.974488
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE KNECHT, dissenting: I respectfully dissent for all the reasons stated in Puckett (175 Ill. App. 3d at 358, 529 N.E.2d at 1171 (Knecht, J., dissenting)). Since that decision in 1988, the first district has decided Cravens. One of the most important qualities of the law is a consistent predictability coupled with the capacity to change. We have a duty to meaningfully consider the plaintiff’s request to recognize a common law cause of action. It does not create havoc or an impossible burden to tell sellers of alcohol that the negligent sale of alcohol to a minor who then injures a third person is actionable. Liquor vendors who illegally sell alcohol to minors pose a danger to the health, safety and welfare of all our citizens. Illinois has made great strides in enforcement of the laws on driving under the influence of alcohol, and in restricting the driving privileges of citizens who abuse alcohol. Recognizing a limited exception to the common law rule of nonliability of dramshops when alcohol is sold to a minor who consequently causes injury to a third person would be another step in the right direction.