Rauck v. Hawn
564 N.E.2d 334, 1990 WL 212378, 1990 Ind. App. LEXIS 1670 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual "furnishes" an alcoholic beverage to another when they are the "active means" by and through which the liquor is placed in the custody and control of the other person; merely participating in a joint acquisition of alcohol is insufficient to constitute furnishing.
Facts:
- Michael Hawn was camping with friends, including Scott Fleming's brother, Mike.
- Scott Fleming, Brian Rauck, and Jerome Schafer, all minors, met Mike Fleming at a convenience store where Mike purchased a case of beer that the three minors began to share.
- After consuming some beer, the three minors decided they wanted whiskey.
- Rauck approached a stranger outside a liquor store, gave the stranger money, and asked him to purchase a fifth of whiskey.
- The stranger purchased the whiskey and handed the bottle to Rauck.
- Rauck then passed the bottle to Fleming and Schafer.
- The group eventually ended up at a campsite where Fleming's family pickup truck was parked with the keys inside.
- Several hours later, Fleming, while highly intoxicated, drove the pickup truck and crashed it into a tree, injuring Hawn, who was asleep inside the vehicle.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Hawn filed a negligence lawsuit in an Indiana trial court against defendants including Brian Rauck and Jerome Schafer.
- Both Rauck and Schafer filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they did not legally 'furnish' alcohol to the driver, Scott Fleming.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Schafer, releasing him from the case.
- The trial court denied summary judgment for Rauck, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether he furnished the alcohol.
- Rauck appealed the denial of his motion and the granting of Schafer's motion to the Court of Appeals of Indiana.
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 an individual 'furnish' alcohol to another under Indiana statute by actively soliciting a third party to purchase it, paying for it, taking initial possession, and then handing it to the other person, even if they were part of a group that collectively decided to acquire it?
Opinions:
Majority - Robertson, Judge.
Yes, an individual furnishes alcohol when their affirmative conduct makes them the 'active means' of placing it in another's control. Rauck's actions went beyond the mere joint acquisition of alcohol that characterized Schafer's involvement. Unlike Schafer, whose participation was limited to agreeing to get whiskey, Rauck devised the plan, solicited a third-party purchaser, paid for the whiskey, and exercised exclusive initial possession and control over the bottle before physically handing it to Fleming. This affirmative conduct distinguishes him from someone merely participating in a group effort and is sufficient for a jury to find that he 'furnished' the alcohol in violation of statute. Furthermore, the court rejected Rauck's argument that the harm was not a foreseeable proximate cause of his actions, holding that injury from an alcohol-related accident is a foreseeable consequence of furnishing alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person, and an actor need only foresee the general injurious consequences of their act, not the exact manner in which the harm occurs.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of civil liability for socially furnishing alcohol, particularly among peers and minors. By focusing on the 'active means' test, the court draws a critical distinction between passive participation in group drinking and the affirmative act of procuring and distributing alcohol. This holding solidifies that liability attaches to the individual who exercises possession and control over the alcohol before delivering it to an intoxicated person. The case provides a clearer standard for trial courts to apply at the summary judgment phase, making it more difficult for individuals who act as the direct conduit for alcohol to escape potential liability by claiming it was a 'joint' or 'group' purchase.
