Court Opinion

ID: 9565399
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 19:20:09.377288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:36.562357
License: Public Domain

Johnson, J.*
(concurring)—I am compelled to concur because the Supreme Court in Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wn.2d 434, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982) and Young v. Caravan Corp., 99 Wn.2d 655, 663 P.2d 834 (1983), in its recitation of the rule in Halvorson v. Birchfield Boiler, Inc., 76 Wn.2d 759, 458 P.2d 897 (1969), has added an extra phrase, to wit, "obviously intoxicated persons." The rule as laid down in Halvorson is found at page 762, and is accurately set forth in our opinion at pages 86-87, quoting 30 Am. Jur. Intoxicating Liquors §§ 520-521 (1958); it does not include the phrase, "obviously intoxicated persons."
Despite its disclaimer in Wilson, 98 Wn.2d at 441, the Supreme Court has by its interpretation legislated an *91enlargement of the common law or Halvorson rule.
Reconsideration denied April 13, 1984.

Judge Bertil E. Johnson is serving as a judge pro tempore of the Court of Appeals pursuant to RCW 2.06.150.