Berg v. Zummo
786 So. 2d 708, 2001 WL 419065 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A vendor of alcoholic beverages can be held liable under general negligence principles for injuries caused by an intoxicated minor patron, without the need to prove an additional affirmative act that increased the minor's peril. However, punitive damages for injuries caused by an intoxicated driver may only be assessed against the intoxicated driver, not against a third party who contributed to the intoxication.
Facts:
- On the night of June 4, 1994, Philip Zummo, who was 17 years old, went to a bar called The Boot.
- While at The Boot, Zummo was not asked for identification and was served a pitcher of beer.
- Zummo drank approximately half of the pitcher of beer.
- Shortly after leaving The Boot, Zummo and four companions encountered Matthew Berg on the street.
- An altercation ensued, during which Zummo's companions assaulted and beat Berg.
- As Zummo and his companions were leaving the scene in Zummo's truck, Zummo drove the vehicle and struck Berg, causing him serious bodily injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Matthew Berg filed a negligence action against Philip Zummo and others in a Louisiana trial court.
- After learning Zummo was a minor who had been drinking at The Boot, Berg amended his complaint to add The Boot as a defendant.
- Berg settled with all defendants except The Boot.
- Following a jury trial, the jury found The Boot partially at fault and awarded Berg both compensatory and punitive damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment in accordance with the jury's verdict.
- The Boot, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's judgment, finding as a matter of law that The Boot could not be held liable for either compensatory or punitive damages.
- The Louisiana Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the appellate court's decision.
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 Louisiana law impose liability on a vendor of alcoholic beverages for damages caused by a minor who became intoxicated after being served by the vendor, without requiring proof of an additional 'affirmative act' that increased the minor's peril?
Opinions:
Majority - Victory, J.
Yes. Louisiana's statutory limitation on vendor liability for acts of intoxicated patrons does not apply when the vendor serves alcohol to a minor, and in such cases, liability is determined by a standard duty/risk analysis. The court reasoned that Louisiana's anti-dram shop statute, La. R.S. 9:2800.1, explicitly provides immunity only for serving alcohol to persons 'over the age for the lawful purchase thereof.' This implies that the legislature did not intend to provide such immunity for serving minors. Therefore, claims against a vendor for serving a minor are governed by general negligence principles under Civil Code articles 2315 and 2316. The 'affirmative act' requirement established in prior jurisprudence for liability involving adult patrons does not apply to minors, as the act of serving a minor is itself a breach of a statutory duty designed to protect minors and the public from the effects of underage drinking. Regarding punitive damages, the court held that La. C.C. art. 2315.4, a penal statute, must be strictly construed. Its legislative history shows it was intended to punish the intoxicated driver exclusively, not third parties like a bar that may have contributed to the intoxication.
Dissenting - Calogero, C.J.
No. The bar owner should not be liable under a duty/risk analysis because the legislature has declared that the consumption of alcohol, not its sale, is the proximate cause of any resulting injury. The dissent argued that La. Rev. Stat. 9:2800.1(A) establishes a universal rule of causation that applies regardless of the patron's age. The majority incorrectly reads the specific immunity for serving adults in subsection (B) as negating the general causation principle in subsection (A) for minors. Since the law dictates that selling alcohol cannot be the legal cause of the injury, and the plaintiff alleged no other negligent act by The Boot, there is no basis for liability.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the scope of vendor liability in Louisiana by creating a major exception to the state's anti-dram shop immunity. It establishes that the protection afforded to bars for the actions of their intoxicated adult patrons does not extend to cases involving minors. By applying a standard duty/risk analysis to the act of serving a minor, the court imposes a heightened duty of care on vendors to prevent underage drinking and holds them accountable for the foreseeable consequences. This precedent makes it substantially easier for plaintiffs to recover from vendors in cases of underage drunk driving or other alcohol-related torts, while simultaneously reinforcing a narrow interpretation of the state's punitive damages statute, limiting its application to the intoxicated driver.
Unlock the full brief for Berg v. Zummo