Court Opinion

ID: 9737434
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:24:59.577112+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.875088
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.
This was a suit for damages arising out of an automobile accident. The accident occurred on December 28, 1986, when an automobile operated by the plaintiff Gwendolyn Pelzek and owned by her mother, the plaintiff Victoria Hubbard, collided with a parked automobile. As a result of the accident the automobiles were damaged and Pelzek was seriously injured.
The petition alleged that before the accident, Pelzek had attended a party at The American Legion’s Benson Post No. 112 Hall, which had been rented from the defendant The American Legion by the defendants Scott Doepke and Tim Dappen. The defendant Doyle Pearson was the manager of the Legion post’s hall.
The petition further alleged that the party was open to the public and fees were charged for the consumption of alcohol. Pelzek was allowed to consume intoxicating liquors and *609became physically and visibly intoxicated. After Pelzek left the party, and while she was driving the car owned by Hubbard, the car collided with a parked automobile. At the time of the accident Pelzek was a little over 18 years old.
The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants were negligent (1) in promoting the consumption of alcohol by a minor; (2) in failing to verify the majority of Pelzek; (3) in promoting the consumption of alcohol by a visibly intoxicated person; (4) in allowing Pelzek, a visibly intoxicated person, to leave the party and to operate an automobile; and (5) in permitting Pelzek to procure alcoholic liquor in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 53-180 (Reissue 1988).
The defendants filed general demurrers to the petition which were sustained, and the action was dismissed. The plaintiffs have appealed. The sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in sustaining the defendants’ demurrers and dismissing the plaintiffs’ cause of action.
The plaintiffs urge this court to recognize a minor’s cause of action for common-law negligence against persons who provide the minor with intoxicating liquors subsequently causing an accident in which the minor suffers personal injury. They argue § 53-180, which prohibits the sale, gift, or procurement of any alcoholic liquors to or for minors or incompetents, supports a duty to protect these classes of persons from the harmful effects of alcohol.
Nebraska’s liquor control act previously provided for dramshop liability in Comp. Stat. § 53-147 (1929). That act including the dramshop provisions was repealed in 1935 by the Nebraska Liquor Control Act, Comp. Stat. §§ 53-301 to 53-3,107 (Supp. 1935). This act, as amended, which is currently in effect, includes the § 53-180 prohibitions as stated above.
The repeal of the dramshop liability provisions was an expression of Nebraska public policy. The Legislature has not since reinstated dramshop liability.
In Holmes v. Circo, 196 Neb. 496, 499, 244 N.W.2d 65, 67 (1976), we stated:
The present law prohibits the dispensing of intoxicating liquors to certain classes of persons, and is a comprehensive act to regulate the manufacture, sale, and *610distribution of alcoholic liquors.
... [Statutes of this type do not create a civil remedy or impose a duty on the part of the bar or tavern operator toward injured third parties.
The plaintiffs in this case contend we should recognize a minor’s common-law action for injuries he or she sustains by virtue of being served alcoholic liquors because “[t]he basis of the liability rests on the principle that any person who sells or distributes intoxicating liquors to a minor should be held accountable for their [sic] actions.” Brief for appellants at 18.
The Legislature has provided how persons who sell or distribute intoxicating liquors to minors shall be held accountable for their actions. A violation of § 53-180 is a Class I misdemeanor, which is punishable by imprisonment for up to 1 year, by a $1,000 fine, or both. Minors who are in possession of alcoholic liquor in violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 53-180.01 to 53-180.04 (Reissue 1988) are also held accountable for their actions and are guilty of a Class III misdemeanor.
In refusing to recognize dramshop liability based on common-law negligence in Holmes, supra at 500-01, 244 N.W.2d at 68, we stated:
At common law, and apart from statute, no redress existed against persons selling, giving, or furnishing intoxicating liquor, or their sureties, for resulting injuries or damages due to the acts of intoxicated persons, whether on the theory that the dispensing of the liquor constituted a direct wrong or constituted actionable negligence. This rule was based on the theory that the proximate cause of the injury was the act of the purchaser in drinking the liquor and not the act of the vendor in selling it.
(Emphasis supplied.)
Although selling liquor to a minor is a violation of § 53-180, it is not the proximate cause of any injuries that the minor might suffer. It is the negligent operation of an automobile after the drinking of liquor which causes the injury.
The plaintiffs argue that § 53-180 should be interpreted as an exception to the rule against common-law dramshop liability because the statute creates a class of persons whose purchase of liquor is prohibited because of their inability to handle liquor *611responsibly. In Gora v. 7-11 Food Stores, 109 Ill. App. 3d 109, 440 N.E.2d 279 (1982), the Illinois Court of Appeals rejected this argument and denied a common-law cause of action to a minor who was injured after being served alcoholic beverages in violation of a statute forbidding the sale of liquor to minors. The court determined that extending liability for the sale or gift of liquor beyond the limits provided by statute was a function of the legislature, not the court. This court has likewise determined that whether to extend dramshop liability is a policy decision that is best left to the Legislature. Holmes v. Circo, supra. See, also, Schroer v. Synowiecki, 231 Neb. 168, 435 N.W.2d 875 (1989); Arant v. G. H., Inc., 229 Neb. 729, 428 N.W.2d 631 (1988).
The plaintiffs also argue that violation of § 53-180 should be evidence of negligence. This argument was addressed in the Holmes decision, and we concluded that the violation of the statute did not constitute evidence of negligence because “[t]o rule otherwise would thwart the intention of the Legislature.” Holmes, supra at 504, 244 N.W.2d at 70. Our position on this issue has not changed since that decision. See Schroer v. Synowiecki, supra.
We are aware that other jurisdictions have extended dramshop liability to situations similar to that of the plaintiffs, but we do not believe that to be the better rule. We conclude that it is a question of public policy which is better left to the Legislature.
The judgment of the district court is affirmed.
Affirmed.