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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

    2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

    3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

    4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

    5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

    ADVERTISEMENT