Split ruling extends convenience stores’ liabilities for beer sales
A divided Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled Tuesday convenience stores may be held liable when they sell beer to an intoxicated person.
By a 5-to-4 decision, the court ruled the state should allow lawsuits that target a commercial vendor of alcohol for non-premises consumption when it sells the product to a noticeably intoxicated person and when that person is subsequently involved in an accident that kills or injures himself or others.
The ruling also held that a person who sells intoxicating beverages for off-premises consumption “has a duty to exercise reasonable care not to sell liquor to a noticeably intoxicated person.”
The court’s ruling involved a long-running appeal of a case filed in Custer County in 2012, two people involved in a vehicular accident with an accused drunken driver filed a lawsuit against a convenience store that apparently sold the driver the alcohol.
Attorneys representing various defendants, including the driver and the convenience store involved, Fast Lane Stores Inc., argued a statutory duty to not sell alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated person for off-premises consumption wasn’t supported by existing state or case law — assertions a majority of the court rejected.
The attorneys also
argued in the case that there was no evidence as to how the drunken driver appeared when he bought beer at the store.
The ruling majority acknowledged that showing noticeable intoxication varies from person to person. Its opinion also observed some states discourage the use of blood alcohol content at the time of an accident to determine whether or not a person must have exhibited signs of intoxication at an earlier time.
These were factors in a decision rendered by the Custer County judge and upheld by Oklahoma’s Court of Civil Appeals that dismissed the initial case.
But the majority’s opinion also stated that an admission from the intoxicated driver that he had been drinking earlier the day of the accident, plus other assertions made by plaintiffs in the case were enough to have allowed a trial to go forward.
The majority ordered the case back to Custer County to be reconsidered.
Case background
The case involved a 2011 fatality accident involving George Carothers, who subsequently was accused of and held accountable for driving under the influence of alcohol.
According to attorneys
representing the estates of Pamela R. Cain, who died, and Ashley N. Haas, who was permanently hurt in the accident, Carothers admitted to having consumed significant amounts of alcohol while attending a golf tournament the day of the accident at Roman Nose State Park in Okarche.
Plaintiffs assert that Carothers bought a nine-pack of 16-ounce beers and a pack of cigarettes about 5:15 p.m. at a Fast Lane convenience store in Clinton, using his credit card.
In related testimony, Carothers said he remembered some of the day’s events, but did not remember buying beer at the convenience store. Conversely, the convenience store clerk also testified he didn’t recall selling beer to Carothers.
Carothers did testify, however, that he remembered leaving his home later that day to attend a party in Elk City, and, about 11 p.m. — about five hours after apparently buying the beer — was involved in a high-speed accident at a four-way-stop intersection that killed Cain, and that hurt Haas and one other person. Investigating officers found empty beer cans near the scene of the accident.
After failing an on-site sobriety test, Carothers was arrested on a complaint of driving under the influence. After his arrest, his blood was drawn, and tests subsequently showed his blood alcohol content at 0.29 percent.
Case law extended
Justices noted Oklahoma used to have a statute specifically addressing this issue, though it was repealed in 1959 when the Legislature approved the Alcohol Beverage Control Act.
In 1986, however, Oklahoma’s Supreme Court created precedent for putting commercial providers of alcohol at risk for liability in this type of case. Justices ruled that operators who knowingly serve drinks to a drunken patron could be liable for damages suffered by a third person injured by acts of the intoxicated patron.
Then, in 2002, the state Supreme Court extended that precedent further, ruling that anyone who sells beer or liquor to a minor for off-premises consumption could be sued for damages if the minor later is hurt, killed or causes injury to someone else.
Plus, a state statute in effect at the time of the accident prohibited alcohol sales to an intoxicated person.
“Fast Lane has a statutory duty not to sell lowpoint beer to an intoxicated person,” the majority stated in its opinion, continuing, “Fast Lane also has a negligence-based duty not to sell low-point beer to an intoxicated person based upon the ... policy recognized by this court in many of its opinions.
“One who sells intoxicating beverages for consumption off the premises has a duty to exercise reasonable care not to sell ... to a noticeably intoxicated person.”
Attorneys involved in the
case before the Supreme Court were not available Tuesday for comment.
Supreme Court justices supporting the decision were Douglas L. Combs, Yvonne J. Kauger, Joseph M. Watt, James E.
Edmondson and Tom J. Colbert. Dissenting Justices were Noma Gurich, James R. Winchester, John F. Reif and Patrick R. Wyrick.
In Winchester’s dissent, he wrote that his concern
was that the court had adopted a new level of liability with this ruling that will be applied retroactively. Winchester argued he would support that expanded liability, but only for future cases.