Court Opinion

ID: 9785892
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 22:45:21.554791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:10.914004
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, J.,
specially concurring.
[¶ 35] I write separately simply to clarify that this Court has taken into account the appellants’ second issue regarding whether the Dram Shop Act is applicable to the facts of the instant case. The appellants’ argument on this issue comes in two parts. Fbst, the Dram Shop Act was raised below by the appellees as a defense, and the appellants attempt to rebut this possible defense. Because this Court finds no duty, there is no need for a defense, making this part of the appellants’ argument moot. Second, the appellants attempt to argue that the Dram Shop Act creates a statutory duty. This argument, however, was never raised below. This Court will not address issues raised for the fbst time on appeal. Since the arguments presented by the appellants regarding the Dram Shop Act lead nowhere, there was no need to address the issue in the majority opinion.