Crowe v. Gaston
134 Wash. 2d 509 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A commercial vendor who sells alcohol to a minor may be liable for injuries to a third party caused by another minor who received the alcohol from the original purchaser. However, a minor acting as a social host who furnishes alcohol to another minor is not liable for injuries to third parties caused by the intoxicated minor.
Facts:
- Kevin Rettenmeier, age 17, agreed to buy beer for several other underage individuals, including Adam Fitzpatrick.
- Rettenmeier went to Oscar's, a commercial vendor, and purchased a quantity of beer using money provided by the other minors.
- Rettenmeier gave all the beer he purchased from Oscar's to Fitzpatrick and the other minors.
- Later that evening, the group gathered at a friend's house where they drank the beer.
- Adam Fitzpatrick became intoxicated from drinking the beer supplied by Rettenmeier.
- Joel Crowe, a passenger who stated he had not been drinking, accepted a ride home from the intoxicated Fitzpatrick.
- During the car ride, Fitzpatrick drove off the road and crashed into a tree, causing injuries to Crowe.
Procedural Posture:
- Joel Crowe sued Oscar’s and Kevin Rettenmeier in the trial court for damages.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Oscar's and Rettenmeier, dismissing Crowe's claims.
- Crowe, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeals.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted Crowe's motion to transfer the case directly from the Court of Appeals for its review.
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 illegally sells alcohol to a minor, who then shares it with another minor, owe a duty of care to a third party injured by the second minor's intoxication, and is the first minor, acting as a social host, also liable for those injuries?
Opinions:
Majority - Madsen, J.
Yes, a commercial vendor may be liable in this situation, but no, the minor social host is not. A commercial vendor's duty, established by statutes prohibiting alcohol sales to minors, extends to all persons foreseeably injured as a result of the illegal sale. The purpose of this legislation is to prevent the hazard of 'alcohol in the hands of minors,' and it is foreseeable that a minor purchasing a quantity of alcohol might share it with other minors who could then cause harm, such as by driving while intoxicated. The acts of sharing and driving are not necessarily superseding causes; their foreseeability is a question for the jury. Conversely, based on the precedent in Reynolds v. Hicks, a social host who furnishes alcohol to a minor is not liable for injuries to third parties. The statute governing social hosts, RCW 66.44.270, was intended to protect minors from their own alcohol abuse, not to protect third parties from intoxicated minors, distinguishing them from commercial vendors who have a profit motive and a statutory safe harbor provision not available to social hosts.
Concurring - Durham, C.J.
Agrees with the majority's outcome that the commercial vendor can be held liable while the social host cannot, but would do so for the reasons expressed in his concurrence in Reynolds v. Hicks.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Johnson, J.
Concurs with holding the commercial vendor liable, consistent with the decision in Schooley. Dissents from the holding that absolves the social host of liability, reaffirming his dissenting position in Reynolds that RCW 66.44.270(1) does establish a duty of care for social hosts, and they may be found liable for a breach of that duty.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Sanders, J.
Dissents from holding the commercial vendor liable for the reasons stated in his dissent in Schooley. Concurs with the majority's dismissal of the claim against the minor social host based on the precedent in Reynolds.
Analysis:
This case expands vendor liability by clarifying that a commercial vendor's duty extends beyond the immediate minor purchaser to others in the chain of distribution, so long as the resulting harm is foreseeable. It solidifies the legal principle that liability can attach even when the alcohol is passed from one minor to another before causing injury. Simultaneously, the decision strongly reinforces the court's recent precedent distinguishing social hosts from commercial vendors, shielding non-commercial providers from liability to third parties. This creates a bifurcated standard of care that significantly increases the legal exposure for businesses while protecting private individuals.
