Court Opinion

ID: 7823346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-09-07 18:01:28.926934+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:30:47.845212
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice, dissenting. The holder of a private club permit with the Arkansas Beverage Control Division is responsible for activities at the club and any action of its agent, servants or employees. Otherwise the rules and regulations of the ABC cannot be enforced. There is no doubt that the Northwest Arkansas Ducks Unlimited had permission to use the club and placed the illegal advertisement. The Elks Club granted the permission and has to be responsible for the violation. One cannot lend its private club and disclaim responsibility; accountability has to be with the permit holder. Rule 1.79 of the ABC Regulation provides: All acts of any servant, agent, or employee of the permittee shall be imputed to the permittee and deemed to be an act of the permittee if done within the scope of such servant, agent, or employee’s scope of authority under the permittee. The Elks and Ducks Unlimited are respectable organizations, but private clubs which dispense alcoholic beverages have to be rigidly regulated. Those who seek liquor permits accept certain responsibilities which cannot be avoided; those who operate private clubs with a liquor permit do so with the knowledge that their acts and the use of the club are strictly regulated. The permit is a license, not a recognition of a right. The commission and board were clearly justified in this action. I would reverse the trial court. George Rose Smith and Hays, JJ., join in this dissent.