Moore v. Willis
767 P.2d 62, 307 Or. 254 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To state a claim for common law negligence against a tavern owner for injuries caused by an intoxicated patron, a plaintiff must allege specific facts demonstrating that the owner knew or should have known that serving alcohol to that patron created a foreseeable risk of the specific type of harm that occurred, such as violence. Merely alleging that the patron was served while visibly intoxicated or underage is insufficient on its own to establish the foreseeability of a violent act.
Facts:
- Defendants Kenneth and Mary Butchek, owners of the Hi-Time Tavern, and defendants Robert and Marilyn O’Brien, owners of the Picadilly Inn, served alcoholic beverages to Patrick Willis and Dale Phillips.
- At the time they were served, Willis and Phillips were visibly intoxicated.
- One of the patrons, Phillips, was under the age of 21.
- The Butcheks called a taxi for Willis and Phillips.
- Cab driver Richard Moore, the plaintiff's decedent, picked up Willis and Phillips from the tavern.
- After leaving the tavern premises, a fight broke out between Moore, Willis, and Phillips.
- During the struggle, a gun was discharged, and Moore was shot to death.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff, representing the estate of Richard Moore, sued the tavern owners (Butcheks and O'Briens) and the patrons (Willis and Phillips) in an Oregon trial court.
- The trial court entered default judgments against patrons Willis and Phillips.
- The defendant tavern owners moved for judgment on the pleadings.
- The trial court granted the tavern owners' motions.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals, as the intermediate appellate court, reversed the trial court's judgment.
- The defendant tavern owners appealed to the Supreme Court of Oregon, the state's highest court.
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 complaint state a claim for common law negligence against a tavern owner by alleging only that the owner served alcohol to visibly intoxicated and underage patrons who subsequently committed a violent act, without alleging additional facts showing the owner had reason to know the patrons would become violent?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, J.
No. A complaint does not state a claim for common law negligence against a tavern owner by only alleging that the patrons were served while visibly intoxicated and underage. To sufficiently plead the element of foreseeability, a plaintiff must allege ultimate facts from which a factfinder could conclude that the defendant knew or should have known of the unreasonable risk of harm. The court reasoned that simply alleging 'negligence' is a legal conclusion, not a statement of fact as required by Oregon's pleading rules (ORCP 18A). Citing its precedent in Reynolds v. Nichols, the court held that the fact a person is visibly intoxicated or underage, standing alone, does not make a subsequent violent act a foreseeable consequence. For the claim to proceed, the plaintiff would need to allege additional facts, such as the patrons having known violent propensities or that it is common for intoxicated patrons to become violent, which would give the tavern owner reason to foresee the specific danger. Because the complaint lacked such specific factual allegations, it failed to adequately plead that the harm was foreseeable.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies Oregon's adherence to a 'fact pleading' standard, requiring plaintiffs in negligence cases to allege specific facts supporting each element, particularly foreseeability, rather than relying on conclusory statements. It raises the bar for plaintiffs in dram shop liability cases based on common law negligence, distinguishing the foreseeability of violence from more commonly associated risks of intoxication, like drunk driving. The ruling requires plaintiffs to plead a specific factual link between the act of serving alcohol and the particular type of harm that occurred, thereby narrowing the scope of potential liability for tavern owners for the unforeseeable, violent acts of their patrons.
