Court refuses to narrow situations for bar liability

PHOENIX – The Arizona Supreme Court has refused to narrow the situations in which a bar can be held liable when one of their drunken patrons goes out and kills someone else.

In a new ruling, the court upheld an $800,000 verdict against JAI Dining Services, the owners of Jaguars Club in Phoenix. The court concluded that it bore some responsibility when Cesar Villanueva, kicked out after being drunk, eventually smashed his truck into a vehicle stopped at a red light and killed two people.

A ruling against a bar for what is called “dram shop’’ liability is not unusual.

What makes this case different is that Villanueva, after leaving the bar, first went home before going out again and getting into the accident. Based on that, attorneys for the bar said its actions could not be considered a “proximate cause’’ of the deaths of the two people, a necessary finding to prove liability.

But Justice Ann Scott Timmer, writing for the unanimous court, said that’s not the way the law works in Arizona.

According to court records, Villanueva drove his truck from the club while intoxicated.

He eventually returned home and fell asleep for a short time before getting up to take a friend home. It was during that trip he ran his truck into the vehicle and killed the two people.

He was subsequently convicted of two counts of manslaughter and was sentenced to prison.

The survivors of the crash victims sued both him and the bar. Jurors returned a $2 million verdict, assessing 40% of the fault to the bar, after the trial judge rejected claims by the bar it could not be sued.

The Court of Appeals reversed based on its belief that the risk created by someone with a liquor license who overserves someone is based on the idea that the person “may be unable to return to his or her home or other place of repose safely.’’

In this case, the appellate judges noted that Villanueva had gone home, fallen asleep and had no known compelling reason to leave. That, they said, made his independent decision to leave and drive his truck an “intervening and superseding cause’’ of the crash, breaking the chain of “proximate causation.’’

Put another way, the appellate court said this was no different than if Villanueva had gotten drunk at home with alcohol he had purchased at a grocery store.

That, said Timmer, was wrong.

She said the basis of dram shop liability is that if a bar overserves a patron it creates a risk that person will drive while intoxicated and cause an accident that kills or injures others.

“Consequently, we have stated it is foreseeable to a liquor licensee that an overserved patron will drive while intoxicated and cause and accident that injures or kills another person,’’ Timmer wrote. And she said no one has cited any authority for the concept that a bar’s liability ends when the person gets home.

“Intoxicated people frequently make foolhardy decisions, including refusing to stay put and sober up before getting behind the wheel,’’ she said. “The risk created by a liquor licensee, overserving a patron exists as long as the patron drives while intoxicated, regardless of when or where the person travels and even with a short stop at home.’’

Timmer rejected claims that the ruling creates a potential never-ending liability on bars.

“First, in all cases the risk of liability ends when the patron sobers up,’’ she said. “Thus, the risk of liability correlates directly to the degree in which the liquor licensee overserves the patron.’’

And Timmer said nothing in the ruling imposes liability when a patron’s decision to resume driving after getting home is “unforeseeable and extraordinary in hindsight.’’

For example, she cited a situation where a tavern owner took a drunk customer home and left her car in the parking lot. Timmer said the patron’s decision to walk back to the bar, get her car and drive was not foreseeable to the owners of the establishment, meaning they were not liable.

That, she said, was not the case here.

“A reasonable person in the club’s position could have foreseen that Villanueva would drive while intoxicated, cause an accident, and injure someone, so long as he remained intoxicated,’’ Timmer said. And unlike the example she cited, there was no effort made to separate Villanueva from his truck or arrange for his safe transportation home.