Court Opinion

ID: 9689606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:41:07.749645+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:50.700763
License: Public Domain

SHERAN, Chief Justice
(dissenting).
The alleged illegal sale of liquor occurred on or about March 2, 1974. No notice of claim was served on the liquor vendors from whom contribution is now being sought until on or about September 29, 1976 — a time lapse of 2½ years. The purpose of the statutory requirement (Minn.St. 340.951) that notice of claim be served “within 120 days after the injury occurs” is to permit the alleged supplier of liquor to investigate the claim before witnesses disappear and memories fail — practical consideration uniquely pertinent in situations of this kind. See, Donahue v. West Duluth Lodge No. 1478 of Loyal Order of Moose, 308 Minn. 284, 241 N.W.2d 812 (1976); White v. Johnson, 272 Minn. 363, 137 N.W.2d 674 (1965).
*84Under the statute the requirement of notice does not apply if the supplier of liquor has “[a]ctual notice of sufficient facts to reasonably put” it “on notice of a possible claim * *
The majority opinion, in my view, ignores the clear legislative purpose of the notice requirement in Minn.St. 340.951 and, in effect, overrules our own recent precedents. See, White v. Johnson, supra; American Auto. Ins. Co. v. City of Minneapolis, 259 Minn. 294, 107 N.W.2d 320 (1961).
I would affirm the decision of the trial court.
WAHL, Justice (dissenting).
I join in the dissent of SHERAN, C. J.
OTIS, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.