Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc.
725 P.2d 300 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A commercial vendor of alcohol for on-premises consumption has a duty to exercise reasonable care not to sell liquor to a noticeably intoxicated person, and may be held civilly liable for injuries to a third party caused by the intoxicated patron.
Facts:
- The Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc. served intoxicating beverages to a group of minors, including Jeff Johnson.
- The Velvet Dove knew that Jeff Johnson was the driver for the group.
- The beverages served by the Velvet Dove allegedly caused Johnson to become intoxicated or increased his prior intoxication.
- An employee of the Velvet Dove assisted the intoxicated Johnson to his car upon the group's departure from the restaurant.
- After leaving, Johnson was involved in a one-car accident.
- Shawn Brigance, a minor passenger in Johnson's car, was injured in the accident.
Procedural Posture:
- Shawn Brigance and Earle Brigance filed a negligence lawsuit against The Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc. and its employees in the District Court of Oklahoma County (trial court).
- The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- The Brigances (appellants) appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court of Oklahoma.
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 a commercial vendor who sells alcohol for on-premises consumption to a noticeably intoxicated person owe a duty of care to a third party who is subsequently injured by the intoxicated person's negligent operation of a motor vehicle?
Opinions:
Majority - Hodges, J.
Yes. A commercial vendor for on-premises consumption has a duty to exercise reasonable care not to sell liquor to a noticeably intoxicated person. The court rejected the old common law rule that the patron's consumption of alcohol, not the sale, was the sole proximate cause of a third party's injury. The court reasoned that this rule is an anachronism in modern society, where the connection between selling alcohol to an intoxicated person and the foreseeable risk of a drunk driving accident is clear. The court stated that the judiciary has the power to adapt the common law to meet the changing needs of society. Therefore, the consumption of alcohol and subsequent impaired driving are foreseeable intervening causes that do not break the causal chain from the vendor's negligent sale.
Concurring - Simms, C.J.
Yes. The concurring opinion agrees with creating vendor liability for injuries to third parties but clarifies an important limitation. This new rule does not alter the common law causation concept for claims brought by the intoxicated consumer himself against the vendor. The driver still has a duty to exercise ordinary care and their voluntary overconsumption remains the proximate cause of their own harm. Therefore, this new cause of action is for injured third parties, not the intoxicated driver.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered Oklahoma tort law by abrogating the common law immunity for tavern owners. It established a new cause of action based on common law negligence principles, aligning Oklahoma with the modern judicial trend of imposing vendor liability. This ruling significantly expands the scope of duty for commercial alcohol vendors, making them potentially liable for the foreseeable off-premises acts of their patrons. The case underscores the judiciary's role in evolving common law doctrines to reflect contemporary social realities and public policy concerns, specifically the dangers of drunk driving.
Unlock the full brief for Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc.