ILNews

COA: Man’s intoxication doesn’t prevent recovery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment in favor of a bar because the trial court was incorrect in ruling that an injured man’s voluntary intoxication precluded any recovery under the Dram Shop Act.

Michael Gray sued Sandstone Bar & Grill for negligence after he drove his motorcycle and injured himself after he spent the day drinking at the bar. It’s unknown exactly how much Gray had to drink because he had bought drinks for friends and others had bought him drinks while he was at the bar.

He believed the bar was liable under the Dram Shop Act; Sandstone filed for summary judgment because it claimed its actions weren’t the proximate cause of Gray’s injuries and that he was voluntary intoxicated. It also claimed to not have actual knowledge of Gray’s intoxication.

The trial court found that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Sandstone had actual knowledge and whether its actions were the proximate cause of Gray’s injuries, but held that Gray’s voluntary intoxication prevented any recovery, citing public policy concerns addressed in Bailey v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 881 N.E.2d 996 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

The Court of Appeals first examined the Dram Shop Act and held that Indiana Code Section 7.1-5-10-15.5(c) clearly spells out that under the statute, the person who is injured is the same as the person who is voluntarily intoxicated.

“(A)n adult consumer who is voluntarily intoxicated may assert a claim of damages for personal injury against the provider who furnished an alcoholic beverage that contributed to the consumer’s voluntary intoxication if: (1) the provider had actual knowledge that the consumer was visibly intoxicated at the time the beverage was furnished, and (2) if the consumer’s intoxication was a proximate cause of the injury or damage alleged,” wrote Judge Paul Mathias in Michael Gray v. D & G, Inc., d/b/a The Sandstone, No. 29A04-1002-CT-113.

Bailey only addressed the common-law tort of negligent entrustment, not the interpretation of the Dram Shop Act, noted Judge Mathias. The act clearly allows for recovery by someone who is voluntarily intoxicated, as long as the provider of the alcohol had actual knowledge that the person was visibly intoxicated at the time they provided the drink and the person’s intoxication was the proximate cause of the injury.

The trial court judge had concerns regarding public policy that might allow an intoxicated person to recover for injuries that were caused by his own voluntary intoxication, but the General Assembly has made the decision that even those who are voluntarily drunk may, under certain circumstances, assert a claim for damages against the person who served them. To hold otherwise would effectively render subsection (c) of the Dram Shop Act a nullity, wrote Judge Mathias.

The appellate court remanded for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • shill???
    Delayed movement like hitting a three year old post to change the discussion from the House or Senate investigating why adjudicated shyster and felon William Conour, Esq., had a license while small potato non felons Dixon, Wemhoff, Rocchio, Ogden, Derek Farmer and me, among others, were thoroughly investigated by the DC and while the DC could not even find the time to file annual reports on how it was prioritizing its investigations? Who is watching the watchers?
  • Legal
    I think bars should be held responsible for over serving patrons, its a responsibility of the owner to properly train servers to know when a customer is intoxicated, Im sure when you get a license to bartend your taught what signs to look for when a person has become intoxicated slurred speech, loud talking and delayed movement.

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

    2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

    3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

    4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

    5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

    ADVERTISEMENT