Andrews v. Eddie's Place, Inc.
199 Ariz. 240, 16 P.3d 801, 337 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 40 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A cause of action for dram shop liability, which is based on both common law negligence and a statutory duty, is governed by the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, not the one-year statute of limitations for liabilities created solely by statute.
Facts:
- Eddie’s Place, Inc., a tavern, sold intoxicating beverages to a patron named Joseph Diaz.
- After leaving the tavern, Diaz operated a motor vehicle.
- Diaz was involved in an automobile accident with Joselyn Andrews and her minor child, Shayla Woodard.
- Andrews and her child sustained injuries as a result of the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Joselyn Andrews filed a negligence lawsuit against Eddie’s Place, Inc. in an Arizona trial court.
- The suit was filed more than one year but less than two years after the automobile accident.
- Eddie’s Place, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the claim was barred by the one-year statute of limitations in A.R.S. § 12-541.
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss.
- Joselyn Andrews, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the Arizona Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims (A.R.S. § 12-542) apply to a dram shop liability action, rather than the one-year statute of limitations for liabilities created by statute (A.R.S. § 12-541), when the cause of action is based on both common law and statutory grounds?
Opinions:
Majority - Druke, Judge
Yes, the two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims applies. A dram shop liability claim is not a liability created solely by statute, as it also has roots in Arizona's common law. The Arizona Supreme Court's decision in Ontiveros v. Borak abolished the common law doctrine of tavern owner nonliability and established that a tavern owner's duty of care exists under both common law and statute. The subsequent enactment of A.R.S. § 4-311 merely codified this pre-existing common law liability, rather than creating a new one. The one-year statute of limitations for a 'liability created by statute' applies only where liability would not exist but for the statute. Because liability here also arises from the common law, the general two-year statute for personal injuries governs the claim.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the nature of dram shop liability in Arizona as having a dual basis in both common law and statute. It clarifies that legislative codification of a common law duty does not convert the action into one 'created by statute' for the purpose of a shorter limitations period. This holding protects plaintiffs' ability to bring such claims within the standard two-year period for personal injuries, preventing defendants from using the more restrictive one-year statute to escape liability. The case serves as a strong precedent for the principle that statutes are not presumed to abrogate common law rights or remedies unless they do so with clear and plain intent.
