Court Opinion

ID: 9540466
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:16:24.712626+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:59:51.995702
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE HEIPLE, specially concurring: The Dramshop Act provides in pertinent part: “Section 6 — 21. Every person who is injured in person or property by an intoxicated person, has a right of action *** against any person who by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, causes the intoxication of such person. *** An action shall lie for injuries to means of support caused by an intoxicated person or in consequence of the intoxication, habitual or otherwise, of any person ***.” Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 43, par. 135. I concur with the result reached in this case. Although the discussion in the opinion relating to the distinction between a “by” cause of action and an “in consequence” cause of action has support in the reported decisions, I find such distinction to be unfortunate. The terms “by” and “in consequence” are equivalent expressions. Attempts to distinguish between the two expressions represent gratuitous judicial accretions in the law which are unnecessary to the purposes of the statute and which, I would surmise, were never contemplated by its drafters or enactors.