Court Opinion

ID: 9853756
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:53:36.753657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:04.071918
License: Public Domain

RUSSON, Justice,
dissenting:
¶ 15 I respectfully dissent. I do not believe this case warrants any further extensions of the doctrine we announced in Rees v. Albertson’s, Inc., 587 P.2d 130, 133 (Utah 1978), and Yost v. State, 640 P.2d 1044, 1046 (Utah 1981). In both Rees and Yost, the minors who directly purchased the alcohol ultimately inflicted the injuries at issue. We held that, in that context, the question of whether it was foreseeable that a minor purchasing alcohol would become intoxicated and cause injury was for the jury to decide. See Yost, 640 P.2d at 1046; Rees, 587 P.2d at 133. Although the issue of causation of injuries related to a minor’s purchase of alcohol may, as a general matter, be within the province of the jury, there is clearly a point where the cause of an injury simply becomes too remote and the chain of proximate causation is broken. When that point is reached, the trial court is justified in ruling that, as a matter of law, the injury was not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the sale of alcohol. This remains true as a fundamental principle of the common law even in cases where the sale was in violation of state law.
¶ 16 I believe we must draw the line at the point where a person who has purchased alcohol, either legally or illegally, passes that alcohol to other persons. Except in circumstances where it should be obvious that a purchase will be immediately shared by a group of minors who are present at the time of purchase, the assumption as to whether and with whom a single individual will share alcohol becomes too speculative to warrant a finding of proximate cause. See Van Cleave v. Kietz-Mill Minit Mart, 97 Nev. 414, 633 P.2d 1220, 1221-22 (1981) (even where initial sale was to minor, foreseeability of subsequent distributions eventually leading to accident was too attenuated to warrant finding of proximate cause); cf. Foster v. Purdue Univ., 567 N.E.2d 865, 869 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (deliverer of kegs to fraternity party had no common law duty to protect minors who attended party).1
¶ 17 Here the evidence on summary judgment failed to demonstrate that the store clerk should have foreseen that Kyle Peacock would share his purchase with another minor, Doug Hoyne, and that Doug Hoyne would become intoxicated, thereby injuring another person, Shawna MacKay. The relevant and undisputed facts show that Peacock briefly visited Hoyne’s vehicle outside the *1237store and then entered the store alone. All three persons in Hoyne’s vehicle remained in that vehicle while Peacock bought the beer. Hoyne’s girlfriend, who had accompanied him in his own truck, went into the store after him, but they took no actions to acknowledge each other inside the store. There is no evidence that the store clerk did see, or should have seen, a group of minors pooling money to buy beer. The store clerk has in fact denied ever making the sale at all, and the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident, Doug Hoyne, stated in his deposition that he intentionally placed his vehicle in a location where the store clerk could not see him.2 Under these facts, I do not believe the question of foreseeability should go to the jury. Summary judgment was proper. I would affirm.
¶ 18 Justice ZIMMERMAN concurs in Justice RUSSON’s opinion.

. Although I recognize there is contrary authority on this question, see, e.g., Thompson v. Victor's Liquor Store, Inc., 216 N.J.Super. 202, 523 A.2d 269, 271-72 (Ct.App.Div.1987) (ruling on facts nearly identical to this case that issue of proximate cause may go to jury), I do not believe that authority is well reasoned. It virtually creates a common law rule of strict liability for any sales of alcohol in violation of statute. See Espey v. Convenience Marketers, Inc., 578 So.2d 1221, 1232 (Ala.1991).

. Peacock did state that he believed Hoyne had parked in a spot where the store clerk could see him, but he offered no testimony about whether he was personally able to see Hoyne’s vehicle from inside the store. In short, what little evidence was offered on this issue in response to the summary judgment motion fell far short of that necessary to create an issue of controverted fact as to whether the store clerk did see, or should have seen, the group of minors conferring outside of the store before Peacock purchased the beer.