Weida v. Dowden
664 N.E.2d 742, 1996 Ind. App. LEXIS 419, 1996 WL 173392 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Indiana's Dram Shop Act, a person who furnishes an alcoholic beverage is not civilly liable for damages caused by the intoxication of the recipient unless the furnisher had actual knowledge that the recipient was visibly intoxicated at the time the beverage was furnished, a rule which applies to both adult and minor recipients.
Facts:
- Tom and Linda Dowden's son, Phillip, held his wedding reception at the White Oaks clubhouse.
- Linda Dowden paid a deposit for a keg of beer at her son's request.
- Phillip and a friend picked up the keg of beer and delivered it to the White Oaks clubhouse for the reception.
- The keg was set up for self-service and was left unattended during the reception.
- James Firth, an eighteen-year-old guest and the bride's brother, drank beer from the keg during the reception.
- After arguing with his girlfriend, Michelle Weida, Firth left the reception driving her home.
- During the drive, Firth crossed the center line and struck an oncoming vehicle, causing serious injuries to Weida.
- A test revealed Firth had a blood alcohol level of .12 percent.
Procedural Posture:
- Michelle Weida and her parents filed a complaint in an Indiana trial court against the Dowdens and the corporate entities operating the White Oaks clubhouse, including Resort Park Investments, Inc.
- The defendants filed motions for summary judgment.
- The trial court initially denied the motions, finding a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants had actual knowledge that James Firth was visibly intoxicated.
- Following this ruling, all parties filed a formal stipulation with the court agreeing that the person who furnished the alcohol did not have actual knowledge that Firth was visibly intoxicated.
- Based on this new stipulation, the defendants filed motions to reconsider.
- The trial court granted the motions to reconsider and entered summary judgment in favor of all defendants.
- The Weidas (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed the grant of summary judgment 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:
Under Indiana law, are social hosts and a property owner liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated minor guest when it is stipulated that the person furnishing the alcohol did not have actual knowledge that the minor was visibly intoxicated at the time?
Opinions:
Majority - Friedlander, J.
No. Under Indiana’s Dram Shop Act, a person who furnishes an alcoholic beverage is not liable for civil damages unless they had actual knowledge that the person being served was visibly intoxicated at the time. The parties stipulated that there was no actual knowledge of James Firth's visible intoxication, which is fatal to the plaintiffs' claim. The court reasoned that the Dram Shop Act (IC § 7.1-5-10-15.5) is the controlling authority for negligence in the provision of alcohol. Citing its precedent in Thompson, the court held that the statute's use of the word 'person' is unambiguous and applies equally to minors and adults; thus, the 'visibly intoxicated' standard must be met even when furnishing alcohol to a minor. Furthermore, neither the Dowdens nor White Oaks legally 'furnished' the alcohol. White Oaks merely provided the premises and was not the 'active means' by which Firth obtained the beer, as the groom brought the keg. The Dowdens only provided money for the deposit, and furnishing money is not the same as furnishing alcohol. The court also rejected a common law negligence claim, holding that for social hosts, liability is limited to breaches of statutory duty, and no special relationship existed here to create a broader duty.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a restrictive view of social host and vendor liability in Indiana, making it significantly more difficult for plaintiffs to succeed in negligence claims related to furnishing alcohol. By strictly applying the 'actual knowledge of visible intoxication' standard from the Dram Shop Act to minors, the court closes a potential avenue for liability that might exist in other jurisdictions. The case also narrowly defines what it means to 'furnish' alcohol, requiring active participation in providing the beverage itself, not just providing the location or funds. This precedent provides strong protection for social hosts and property owners against liability for the actions of their intoxicated guests.
