About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

57 Calif. L. Rev. 995 (1969)
Dram Shop Liability--A Judicial Response

handle is hein.journals/calr57 and id is 1023 raw text is: DRAM SHOP LIABILITY-A JUDICIAL RESPONSE A recent federal study reports that the use of alcohol by drivers and pedestrians leads to some 25,000 deaths and 800,000 collisions in the United States each year.' Although tort law is obviously incapable of eliminating the wholesale social disruption fostered by intoxication- caused automobile accidents, it can perform its traditional functions of equitably allocating losses and deterring future injuries. But these dual goals cannot be met unless the law is able to reach all those whose unreasonable risks result in injury. The average drunk driving accident may result from the risk- producing activities of two parties: the motorist who drives an auto- mobile after becoming intoxicated and the liquor vendor who sells alcohol to the motorist who is incapacitated because of intoxication or other condition. The drunk driver in California has always been sub- ject to tort sanctions.2 The liquor vendor, on the other hand, has always been absolved from civil liability.' California cases have consistently held that as a matter of law the supplying of alcohol is not the proxi- mate cause of injuries sustained by an intoxicated tavern patron or inflicted by him on a third party. The theme of this Comment is that the line of decisions in Cali- fornia which denies liability against the seller of intoxicating beverages fails to use tort law to constructive social advantage. The average in- toxication case demonstrates that established negligence doctrines could furnish the California courts with the tools for remaking the law of dram shop liability into a realistic and constructive force. This Com- ment focuses on the intoxication-caused injury in its most dramatic form -the automobile accident. But the proposals of the Comment also apply to other, less frequent and less spectacular intoxication-caused damage. Discussion will center around California precedent and stat- utes, but the analysis and criticism of California law applies with equal vitality to the nine other states which share the California rule of non- liability.4 1. STAFF OF HOUSE COMM. ON PUBLIC WORKS, 90TH CONG., 2D SESS., 1968 ALCOHOL AND HIGHWAY SAFETY REPORT 1 (Comm. Print 1968). 2. E.g., Stickel v. San Diego Elec. Ry., 32 Cal. 2d 157, 195 P.2d 416 (1948); Zamucen v. Crocker, 149 Cal. App. 2d 312, 308 P.2d 384 (1957). 3. See text accompanying notes 32-57 infra. 4. Cherbonnier v. Rafalovich, 88 F. Supp. 900 (D. Alaska 1950); Carr v. Turner, 238 Ark. 889, 385 S.W.2d 656 (1965); Collier v. Stamatis, 63 Ariz. 285, 162 P.2d 125 (1945); Henry Grady Hotel Co. v. Sturgis, 70 Ga. App. 379, 28 S.E.2d 329 (Ct. App. 1943); Stringer v. Calmes, 167 Kan. 278, 205 P.2d 921 (1949); Waller's

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most