Court Opinion

ID: 9641074
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:22:22.529914+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:34.807383
License: Public Domain

Johnson, J.,
dissenting. I disagree with the majority’s broad interpretation of the contribution provision in Vermont’s Dram Shop Act (DSA), 7 V.S.A. §§ 501-507, because it effectively nullifies the purpose of the statute in direct contravention of the Legislature’s intent.
The main issue in this case is the interpretation of 7 V.S.A. § 501(f), which states:
A defendant in an action brought under this section has a right of contribution from any other responsible person or persons, which may be enforced in a separate action brought for that purpose.
The trial court held that the right of contribution was limited to persons responsible under the Act, i.e., those persons or.entities *10expressly made liable under § 501(a) for injuries that result from intoxication induced in violation of the Act. Thus, defendant Haig’s, which allegedly violated the DSA by overserving, could not seek contribution from the intoxicated driver who allegedly injured plaintiff. The majority reads the statute differently, and claims that the plain language permits a dram shop to seek contribution from the intoxicated person. In my view, the trial court correctly interpreted the statute.
[A]s Judge Learned Hand said, “the words used, even in their literal sense, are the primary, and ordinarily the most reliable, source of interpreting the meaning of any writing,” nevertheless “it is one of the surest indexes of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to their meaning.”
Public Citizen v. United States Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 454-55 (1989) (quoting Cabell v. Markham, 148 F.2d 737, 739 (2d Cir.), aff’d, 326 U.S. 404 (1945)). Thus, in the words of Justice Holmes, the plain meaning rule is “rather an axiom of experience than a rule of law, and does not preclude consideration of persuasive evidence if it exists.” Boston Sand & Gravel Co. v. United States, 278 U.S. 41, 48 (1928). A thoughtful examination of the purposes of the DSA and a thorough review of the legislative history show that the majority’s reliance on the plain language doctrine is simplistic and incorrect.
The Dram Shop Act was enacted to overcome the common-law barrier preventing third parties from suing furnishers of intoxicating liquors. Winney v. Ransom & Hastings, Inc., 149 Vt. 213, 215, 542 A.2d 269, 270 (1988). The overarching purpose of the Act and predecessor statutes is to include the server and furnisher of intoxicating liquor in the effort to prevent injuries resulting from intoxication and to ensure that, if an injury does occur, the injured party is properly compensated. See Healey v. Cady, 104 Vt. 463, 466, 161 A. 151, 152 (1932) (predecessor statute to DSA “was enacted to compel those who will hazard causing damage by furnishing intoxicating liquor to others to answer for such damage to those who may suffer it”); see also Ackerman v. Kogut, 117 Vt. 40, 47, 84 A.2d 131, 136 (1951) (“[T]he spirit and purpose of [a predecessor statute to the Dram Shop Act] is that traffic in intoxicating liquor shall be so conducted as to discourage intoxication and encourage temperance.”); *111 J. Mosher, Liquor Liability Law § 2.01[2], at 2-4 (1995) (listing three purposes of dram shop acts: (1) protect public health and safety, (2) provide compensation, (3) regulate and discipline furnishers of intoxicating beverages).
Not surprisingly, dram shops have sought relief from the strict liability the Act imposes. During the 1987 legislative session, three bills were introduced as part of a comprehensive effort to revise the DSA and to limit dram shop liability. See Statement of Purpose, S. 5, Vt. Bien. Sess. (1987); Statement of Purpose, S. 14, Vt. Bien. Sess. (1987); Statement of Purpose, H. 57, Vt. Bien. Sess. (1987). Two of these bills contained a contribution provision. S. 5, § 1; H. 57, § 1. Most significantly, all of these bills, as introduced, broadened liability under the Act by including the intoxicated person as a responsible person in § 501(a), the section creating the action for damages. S. 5, § 1; S. 14, § 1; H. 57, § 1. If the bills had been passed as introduced, the intoxicated person would have been a defendant under the DSA, permitting contribution both by a dram shop against the intoxicated person and by an intoxicated person against a dram shop.
The Legislature, however, refused to accommodate fully the sponsors of the DSA amendments. After much debate in both the House and the Senate, the Legislature did not create a cause of action against the intoxicated person as a responsible person under the DSA. See 1987, No. 103. The pertinent section is virtually the same as that introduced except for the omission of the intoxicated person. Compare S. 5, § 1 with 1987, No. 103, § 1; see Estate of Kelley v. Moguls, Inc., 160 Vt. 531, 533, 632 A.2d 360, 362 (1993) (legislative history demonstrated that Legislature considered and rejected attempt to have DSA preempt all common-law negligence actions against sellers and furnishers of alcoholic beverages when facts of case do not fall within Act’s scope).
While specifically rejecting DSA liability against the intoxicated person, the Legislature did adopt the contribution provision, but it did so to cure what it viewed as a “deep pockets” problem. See Hearings on S. 5 Regarding Dram Shop Liability Before the House General & Military Affairs Comm., Vt. Bien. Sess. 10-15 (Mar. 25, 1987) (testimony by Bill Fisher, Michael Grisanti, and Daniel Pudvah). To limit liability under the DSA and to ensure that furnishers are only responsible in proportion to their liability for illegally serving intoxicating liquors, a “deep pockets” furnisher is now able to seek contribution from other responsible furnishers. Id.
The point may be raised, of course, that the Legislature’s refusal to create a cause of action under the Dram Shop Act against the *12intoxicated driver is a separate and distinct issue that has no bearing on the meaning of “any responsible person” found in the section allowing dram shop defendants to seek contribution. Several reasons militate against reading the two sections separately.
First, the majority goes further in limiting liability for dram shops than even the proponents had thought possible. Under the original bills, the proponents conceded that both dram shops and intoxicated persons would be able to seek contribution from each other. When the Legislature removed the intoxicated person as a person responsible under the DSA, the intoxicated person lost the ability to seek contribution from the dram shop. See 7 V.S.A. § 501(f) (right of contribution given only to a “defendant in an action brought under” DSA); Howard v. Spafford, 132 Vt. 434, 435, 321 A.2d 74, 74-75 (1974) (Vermont common law does not permit contribution among joint tortfeasors). Allowing contribution against the intoxicated person would, in effect, make that person liable for damages that result from liability under the Act. Not only is this contrary to what the Legislature intended, it produces a highly inequitable result because the right to contribution applies only to one joint tortfeasor, the dram shop. Moreover, this anomalous result suggests that the right to seek contribution was linked to the section creating responsible parties under the Act, and was not meant to include wholesale contribution from those not liable under the Act.
Second, if we alter the facts and change the target of the contribution from an intoxicated driver to a sober driver, and include other potentially “responsible” parties, it is apparent that the Legislature could not have intended the majority’s broad interpretation. For example, while his parents are out of town, a fourteen-year-old boy, under the supervision of an adult caretaker, is served at two different bars and becomes intoxicated. The boy leaves the bar, staggers blindly into the street, and is struck and injured by a speeding car, driven by a sober driver. The child’s parents sue the owners of the first bar. See 7 V.S.A. § 501(a)(1) (creating cause of action for serving minor). The owners of the first bar attempt to seek contribution from “any other responsible person.” Id. § 501(f). Under the majority’s plain meaning interpretation, three different persons might be held responsible for contribution: (1) the second bar is responsible under the DSA, (2) the sober driver may be responsible on a negligence theory, and (3) the adult caretaker is responsible for permitting the child to go to a bar. If one cares to complicate the facts further, additional parties could be added.
*13As noted above, the common law of Vermont has not permitted contribution among joint tortfeasors. Howard v. Stafford, 132 Vt. at 435, 321 A.2d at 74-75. Nor has the Legislature seen fit to adopt any version of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, which has been in effect in some states for many years. See Tebo v. Havlik, 343 N.W2d 181, 212 n.84 (Mich. 1984) (Ryan, J., concurring) (detailing states that have adopted 1939 or 1955 Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act). It is not plausible to me that the Legislature intended to change the entire law of contribution in the state of Vermont solely for dram shop owners. It is plausible that the Legislature considered allowing contribution among parties liable under the Act, including the least sympathetic party among potential joint tortfeasors — the intoxicated driver. While it rejected making the intoxicated driver liable, the Legislature adopted a limited form of contribution to operate within the confines of the DSA alone.
Third, by permitting contribution against the intoxicated tortfeasor and others, the majority severely undercuts the essential purpose for which the DSA was enacted — to prevent dram shops, despite their self-interest in selling liquor, from serving persons in violation of the statute. The majority permits furnishers to shift liability away from the very persons the DSA is intended to reach. This removes an important legislative incentive for dram shops to comply with the law. If the Legislature had intended to diminish the effectiveness of the statute in this manner, it would have repealed it. Instead, the majority has accomplished repeal.
Accordingly, I dissent.