Morris v. Bulldog BR, LLC
147 So.3d 1122, 2013 La.App. 1 Cir. 1861, 2014 WL 3611144 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Louisiana's anti-dram shop statute, LSA-R.S. 9:2800.1, a vendor who sells or serves alcoholic beverages to a person of lawful drinking age is not liable for injuries caused by that person's subsequent intoxication, as the consumption of alcohol, not its sale, is the proximate cause of such injuries.
Facts:
- Joseph Branch was a patron at The Bulldog BR, LLC (The Bulldog), a bar in Baton Rouge.
- While at The Bulldog, Branch consumed a number of alcoholic beverages and became visibly intoxicated.
- After leaving the bar, Branch operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
- Branch's vehicle struck Daniel Morris and Nathaniel Crowson from behind as they were riding their bicycles.
- As a result of the collision, Crowson was killed and Morris was severely injured.
- Morris alleged that The Bulldog engaged in unspecified 'affirmative acts that increased the peril' to Branch.
Procedural Posture:
- Daniel Morris filed suit against The Bulldog BR, LLC, and others in a Louisiana trial court.
- The Bulldog filed a peremptory exception raising the objection of no cause of action, arguing it was immune from liability under LSA-R.S. 9:2800.1.
- The trial court sustained The Bulldog's exception.
- A final judgment was signed dismissing Morris's suit against The Bulldog with prejudice.
- Daniel Morris, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.
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 Louisiana's anti-dram shop statute, LSA-R.S. 9:2800.1, provide immunity to a bar from liability for injuries caused by a patron to whom it served alcohol, when the plaintiff alleges the bar engaged in affirmative acts that increased the peril to the intoxicated patron?
Opinions:
Majority - McClendon, j.
No. Louisiana's anti-dram shop statute, LSA-R.S. 9:2800.1, provides immunity to a bar from liability for off-premises injuries caused by an intoxicated adult patron, and a general allegation of 'affirmative acts' is insufficient to create an exception to this statutory immunity. The court reasoned that the language of LSA-R.S. 9:2800.1 is clear and unambiguous, expressly stating that the 'consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the sale or serving' is the proximate cause of any resulting injury. The legislature's stated purpose was to shift responsibility from the alcohol vendor to the intoxicated individual. The statute provides only two specific exceptions: serving alcohol to a minor, or causing consumption by force or misrepresentation. Since Morris did not allege that either of these statutory exceptions applied, his claim fails as a matter of law. The court rejected Morris's reliance on dicta from a footnote in Berg v. Zummo, finding that statement did not create a new judicial exception to the statute's plain language.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the broad and robust immunity granted to alcohol vendors under Louisiana's anti-dram shop law. The court's strict interpretation of the statute signals that it is unwilling to create judicial exceptions beyond those explicitly enumerated by the legislature. By dismissing the claim based on a vague allegation of 'affirmative acts,' the decision establishes a high bar for plaintiffs attempting to circumvent the statute, requiring them to plead facts that fall squarely within the statutory exceptions. This solidifies the legal principle that, in Louisiana, the legal responsibility for actions taken while intoxicated rests almost exclusively with the adult consumer of alcohol, not the provider.
