Court Opinion

ID: 9793729
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 02:52:05.082948+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:06:42.628607
License: Public Domain

SIMMS, Chief Justice,
concurring:
I fully concur in the opinion of the Court changing the common-law rule of nonliability for injuries to third parties. I add this comment only to point out that the opinion does not alter the traditional common-law causation concept to benefit a consumer driver’s claim against the vendor. While the vendor of liquor for on premises consumption owes a duty not to provide alcohol to a driver who is noticably intoxicated, the driver also owes a duty to exercise ordinary care for his own safety and the safety of others by desisting from voluntary overconsumption. In a dispute brought by the consumer seeking recovery against the vendor, the common-law notion that it is the consumer whose consumption constitutes the proximate cause of harm remains viable.
I am authorized to state that Vice Chief Justice DOOLIN and Justice OPALA join with the views expressed herein.