Estate of Kelly v. Falin
127 Wash.2d 31, 1995 Wash. LEXIS 167, 896 P.2d 1245 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A commercial vendor of alcohol does not owe a duty of care to an obviously intoxicated adult patron and is therefore not liable for injuries the patron sustains as a result of their own intoxication.
Facts:
- In one incident, Cary Kelly consumed a considerable amount of beer at the Family Tavern over several hours.
- The bartender at Family Tavern continued to serve Kelly multiple pitchers of beer even after he became boisterous, unruly, slurred his speech, and spilled drinks.
- After leaving the tavern, Kelly drove his car at high speed, crashed into a tree, and died instantly. His blood alcohol content was .31.
- In a separate incident, Richard Wolfram went to Lahaina Louie's Pub & Cafe, where he consumed five beers and several shots of Jagermeister in an hour and a half.
- Wolfram was described as obviously intoxicated, slurring his speech and getting into a shoving match, yet the bartender served him a final beer after last call.
- While driving home, Wolfram lost control of his car and crashed, resulting in an injury that left him a quadriplegic. His blood alcohol content was .22.
Procedural Posture:
- In the first case, Cary Kelly's estate sued Family Tavern in trial court, and a jury found the tavern and Kelly each 50% at fault, entering a judgment for the estate.
- Family Tavern, the defendant, appealed this judgment to the Court of Appeals.
- In the second case, Richard Wolfram sued Lahaina Louie's Pub & Cafe in the Superior Court for King County (trial court).
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant, Lahaina Louie's.
- Wolfram, the plaintiff, appealed the summary judgment.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted motions to transfer both appeals directly to it and consolidated the cases for 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 establishment that serves alcohol to an obviously intoxicated adult patron owe a duty of care to that patron for self-inflicted injuries resulting from intoxication?
Opinions:
Majority - Durham, C.J.
No. A commercial establishment does not owe a duty of care to an obviously intoxicated adult patron for injuries the patron subsequently inflicts upon themselves. Washington follows the common-law rule of nonliability for furnishing alcohol to able-bodied adults, a rule reinforced when the Legislature repealed the state's 'Dramshop Act.' While courts have created exceptions for injuries to innocent third parties and for serving minors, extending this duty to protect intoxicated patrons from themselves would contravene legislative intent and dismantle the common-law rule. The statute prohibiting sales to intoxicated persons (RCW 66.44.200) is intended to protect the public's general welfare, not to shield drunk drivers from the consequences of their own actions. Public policy favors individual responsibility, and allowing such a cause of action would foster irresponsibility and reward drunk driving.
Dissenting - Guy, J.
Yes. A commercial vendor's duty not to serve an obviously intoxicated person should extend to injuries sustained by the patron themselves. The majority incorrectly frames the issue as one of duty when it should be about comparative fault, which is a question for the jury. Precedent establishes that a commercial purveyor has a duty not to furnish alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person, and this duty should not vary based on the identity of the victim. The purpose of this duty is to prevent the foreseeable consequences of drunk driving, which includes harm to the driver. By denying the existence of a duty, the majority usurps the jury's role under Washington's comparative fault statutes to apportion responsibility between the negligent tavern and the intoxicated patron.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a bright-line rule in Washington, refusing to extend dram shop liability to 'first-party' claims brought by intoxicated adults for their own injuries. It solidifies the distinction between the duty owed to innocent third parties and minors versus the lack of a duty owed to the intoxicated adult patron. The ruling strongly emphasizes judicial deference to the legislature in the area of alcohol-related liability and reinforces a public policy centered on individual responsibility, effectively closing the door on tort claims by intoxicated adults against the establishments that served them.
