Cox v. Rolling Acres Golf Course Corp.
532 N.W.2d 761, 1995 WL 327038, 1995 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 119 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff who voluntarily participates to a material and substantial extent in the drinking that leads to the intoxication of the person who causes the plaintiff's injury is barred from recovery in a dram shop action due to the defense of complicity, which may be established as a matter of law in exceptional cases.
Facts:
- On June 13, 1992, Robert R. Cox and Charles M. Atwood went golfing at Rolling Acres Golf Course.
- Between approximately 11:15 a.m. and 5:15 p.m., the two men played golf and drank, splitting three six-packs of beer and consuming at least one additional beer each at the clubhouse.
- Cox and Atwood alternated buying rounds of beer for each other throughout the day.
- After golf, they drove to the Point Lounge, where each had two more beers, and then to Haddy's, where each consumed another beer.
- They left Haddy's at approximately 7:15 p.m. only after they ran out of money, with the intention of getting more money to continue drinking. Cox bought Atwood's last beer of the night.
- Shortly after 11:00 p.m., Atwood lost control of his truck, causing it to crash and roll over.
- Cox, a passenger in the truck, sustained serious injuries, including a broken neck, while Atwood sustained only minor injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Robert R. Cox filed a dram shop action in the Iowa district court (trial court) against Rolling Acres Golf Course Corp., Jerry A. Merritt (owner of the Point Lounge), and Tom Haddy (owner of Haddy's).
- Cox filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability.
- The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, asserting the affirmative defenses of complicity and assumption of the risk.
- The district court denied Cox's motion and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, ruling that the undisputed facts established Cox's complicity as a matter of law.
- Cox filed a motion for rehearing and for expanded findings of fact, which the district court denied.
- Cox (as appellant) appealed the grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of Iowa.
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 plaintiff's active and substantial participation in the intoxication of a driver, including buying approximately half of the driver's drinks over an eight-hour period, constitute complicity as a matter of law, thereby barring the plaintiff's dram shop action against the alcohol vendors?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Snell
Yes. A plaintiff's active participation in a driver's intoxication, to a material and substantial extent, establishes the defense of complicity as a matter of law and bars recovery under the dram shop act. The purpose of the dram shop act is to protect innocent parties, not those who have participated in the intoxication. Complicity exists where a plaintiff has encouraged or voluntarily participated to a material and substantial extent in the drinking of the person who caused the injury. While typically a question for the jury, it can be decided as a matter of law in exceptional cases where the facts are undisputed and overwhelmingly establish involvement. Here, Cox was not a mere passive companion; he drank with Atwood for over eight hours, they consumed between twenty and thirty beers together, and Cox purchased approximately half of the beers Atwood consumed. This level of participation is material and substantial, establishing complicity as a matter of law and barring his claim.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of the complicity defense in Iowa dram shop law, establishing that it can be decided on summary judgment where the plaintiff's participation is undisputed and significant. It distinguishes complicity, which focuses on the plaintiff's 'involvement,' from assumption of risk, which focuses on the plaintiff's 'knowledge' of the danger. The decision empowers defendants in dram shop cases to defeat claims at an early stage by showing that the plaintiff was an active participant in the drinking session, thereby reinforcing the statute's intent to protect only 'innocent' victims.
