Court Opinion

ID: 9524342
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:51:56.538065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:09:40.476418
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the result reached by the majority because I believe the trial court properly sustained defendant’s demurrer on the grounds the amended petition does not state a cause of action.
Plaintiff’s amended petition alleges that Robert Wondra was the operator of an automobile which “suddenly swerved from the westbound traffic lanes” and struck plaintiff’s car. What Wondra did is not alleged. Cf. Bourke v. Watts, 223 Neb. 511, 391 N.W.2d 552 (1986).
With regard to the intoxication issue, plaintiff alleges that defendant’s “bartender caused and contributed to the intoxication of Wondra by selling intoxicating alcoholic beverages to Wondra” when the bartender knew or should have known that Wondra was intoxicated. Plaintiff does not allege that defendant’s agent sold such beverages to Wondra and that the beverages were consumed at a time leading to the accident in question by directly causing or increasing the level of Wondra’s intoxication. The sale could be of unopened containers placed unused in Wondra’s car, or of sales constituting “ ‘pouring alcohol into [the drunken customer]. . . .’ ” Nazareno v. Urie, 638 P.2d 671, 674 (Alaska 1981).
Plaintiff recognizes this problem when he improperly sets out in his brief facts which, if alleged, might constitute a *732common-law action for negligence. Without any reference to any record before us, plaintiff states, “Investigation revealed that Robert Wondra had been drinking beer and shots of tequila at the bar,” and “Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant’s bartender was negligent in continuing to serve an intoxicated patron ...” Brief for appellant at 2. No such factual allegations were set out in the petition.
Plaintiff argues that “[t]he time has come for judicial adoption of dramshop liability ...” Brief for appellant at 8. Plaintiff appears to want this court to readopt the provisions of Comp. Stat. § 53-147 (1929). I do not think that is our function. Viewed strictly as a petition in law, plaintiff’s petition does not set out facts, as distinguished from conclusions, which, in my opinion, state a cause of action, unless one wants to apply the strictest theories of absolute liability to the question before us.