Purchase v. Meyer
108 Wash.2d 220, 737 P.2d 661 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A commercial vendor that sells alcohol to a minor in violation of a statute is negligent per se and may be held liable for injuries to a third party caused by the intoxicated minor. Separately, to hold a vendor liable for serving an 'obviously intoxicated' person, the determination of intoxication must be based on the person's appearance at the time of service, not on a subsequent blood alcohol test.
Facts:
- On September 22, 1983, Mary Margaret Meyer, age 19, socialized with friends at the El Torito restaurant's cocktail lounge.
- While at El Torito, employees served Meyer three margaritas.
- Meyer and her friends later stated that she did not appear intoxicated while at the restaurant or upon leaving.
- Sometime after leaving El Torito, Meyer was driving her car and collided with David Purchase, who was riding a motorcycle.
- Approximately 3.5 to 4 hours after Meyer left the restaurant, she was administered an alcohol breath test, which registered a .13 blood alcohol content (BAC).
Procedural Posture:
- David Purchase sued Mary Margaret Meyer and El Torito in the Superior Court for Pierce County (a trial court).
- Purchase asserted two claims against El Torito: negligence per se for serving a minor, and common law negligence for serving an 'obviously intoxicated' person.
- Meyer filed a cross-claim against El Torito for contribution.
- El Torito filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss both of Purchase's claims against it.
- The trial court denied summary judgment on the 'obvious intoxication' claim but granted summary judgment on the negligence per se claim, dismissing it.
- The parties (petitioners Purchase and Meyer, and respondent El Torito) successfully moved for direct discretionary review by the Supreme Court of Washington.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a third party injured by an intoxicated minor driver maintain a negligence per se claim against a commercial vendor that sold alcohol to the minor in violation of statute?
Opinions:
Majority - Andersen, J.
Yes, a third party injured by an intoxicated minor driver may maintain a negligence per se claim against a commercial vendor that sold alcohol to the minor. The court held that the statute prohibiting the sale of alcohol to minors (RCW 66.44.320) establishes a minimum standard of conduct for commercial vendors. A violation of this statute constitutes negligence per se, and the duty imposed by the statute extends not only to the minor but also to the general public who may be harmed by the minor's intoxication. Therefore, Purchase, as an injured member of the public, has an actionable claim against El Torito for its statutory violation. The court also addressed the separate claim of serving an 'obviously intoxicated' person, holding that this must be judged by the person's appearance at the time of service, not by what a later blood alcohol test reveals. Because there was no evidence that Meyer appeared intoxicated at El Torito, that claim failed, but the negligence per se claim for serving a minor was valid.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies two distinct avenues of liability for commercial alcohol vendors in Washington. It significantly strengthens the cause of action against vendors who serve minors by affirming the negligence per se doctrine, making it easier for injured third parties to establish a breach of duty. Conversely, it reinforces the difficulty of proving a claim for serving an 'obviously intoxicated' adult by strictly limiting evidence to contemporaneous observations of the patron's behavior, excluding later BAC tests. This puts a strong legal incentive on vendors to rigorously enforce age verification policies while protecting them from liability based on speculative, after-the-fact evidence of intoxication.
Unlock the full brief for Purchase v. Meyer