Reconsidering the Illinois Dram Shop Act: a Plea for the Recognition of a Common Law Action in Contemporary Dram Shop Litigation, 19 J

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Reconsidering the Illinois Dram Shop Act: a Plea for the Recognition of a Common Law Action in Contemporary Dram Shop Litigation, 19 J UIC Law Review Volume 19 Issue 1 Article 3 Fall 1985 Reconsidering the Illinois Dram Shop Act: A Plea for the Recognition of a Common Law Action in Contemporary Dram Shop Litigation, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 49 (1985) Peter J. Wifler Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Peter J. Wifler, Reconsidering the Illinois Dram Shop Act: A Plea for the Recognition of a Common Law Action in Contemporary Dram Shop Litigation, 19 J. Marshall L. Rev. 49 (1985) https://repository.law.uic.edu/lawreview/vol19/iss1/3 This Comments is brought to you for free and open access by UIC Law Open Access Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UIC Law Review by an authorized administrator of UIC Law Open Access Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. COMMENTS RECONSIDERING THE ILLINOIS DRAM SHOP ACT: A PLEA FOR THE RECOGNITION OF A COMMON LAW ACTION IN CONTEMPORARY DRAM SHOP LITIGATION On June 25, 1978, having already consumed a considerable amount of liquor, Fred Gustafson drove to two Illinois taverns and purchased more alcohol.' Upon leaving the premises, employees of the two taverns physically escorted Gustafson to his car. Gustafson displayed conduct showing a reckless disregard for his safety. Inside the car, visible to those who escorted him, were five of Gustafson's children. Later that evening, an automobile accident took the life of Gustafson and four of his children.' Gustafson's wife sued the owners of the taverns for damages under the Illinois Dram Shop Act (the "DSA").3 Because of the stringent statutory limitations,* Mrs. Gustafson was entitled to re- cover a maximum award of only $35,000 from the defendants.' Be- cause the DSA relies upon the doctrine of strict liability,5 the tavern 1. Gustafson v. Mathews, 109 Ill. App. 3d 884, 886, 441 N.E.2d 388, 389 (1982). 2. Id. at 885-86, 441 N.E.2d at 389. 3. ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 43, § 135 (1983). 4. Section 135 of the Dram Shop Act limits recoverable damages for loss of property of any person to $15,000, and $20,000 for loss of means of support. Thus, assuming Mrs. Gustafson could prove $15,000 worth of property damage, and prove her means of support was damaged by $20,000, she would only receive a total of $35,000. See ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 43 § 135 (1983). In addition to property damage and loss of means of support, the DSA allows recovery for personal injury up to $15,000 for each person. Id. Thus, each surviving person, in this instance the one child, could potentially recover $15,000 individually from the tavern owners based upon a per- sonal injury claim. See also Zamiar v. Linderman, 132 Ill. App. 3d 886, 889, 478 N.E.2d 534, 536 (1985) (liability for each occurrence under the DSA for commercial suppliers of liquor is limited to $35,000). Further, the DSA places an aggregate limitation of $20,000 for the loss of means of support. Thus, if all five Gustafson children had survived the accident, the family still would have only recovered a total of $20,000 for the loss of means of support. See Steller v. Miles, 17 Ill. App. 2d 435, 150 N.E.2d 630 (1958) (held that legislative in- tent of 1955 amendment to the DSA was to establish an aggregate limitation of $20,000). 5. Plaintiff need only show that the sale or gift of intoxicating liquor caused the intoxication and not that the defendant was negligent or that he violated a liquor control law. ILL. REV. STAT. ch. 43, § 135 (1983). The pertinent section of the statute states "[elvery person who is injured in person or property by any intoxicated person, has a right of action in his or her own name, severally or jointly, against any person The John Marshall Law Review [Vol. 19:49 employees' acts of escorting Gustafson to his car and their failure to prevent him from driving, while visibly intoxicated, were of no con- sequence to the widow's cause of action. Illinois' first DSA was enacted in July of 1872. As revised, the Act establishes a strict liability standard on dram shop operators for torts committed either "by" an intoxicated patron or "in conse- quence of" the intoxication of any person.' Although originally con- sidered penal in nature,7 the DSA was established to create a cause of action for damages against retail vendors of alcoholic beverages because none existed at common law." The first Illinois Supreme Court case to interpret the Act was Cruse v. Aden,9 decided in 1889. Surprisingly, Cruse is still often cited as precedent for contemporary dram shop litigation. 0 It was not until 1961 when the Illinois Su- preme Court for the first time addressed the issue of whether a com- mon law action existed apart from the DSA against retail vendors of alcoholic beverages for injuries their intoxicated customers caused." Although the Act itself was silent regarding a common law remedy, the court refused to recognize any remedy apart from the Act. 2 Since 1961, neither the Illinois Supreme Court nor the General who by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, causes the intoxication of such person." Id. (emphasis added). 6. 1871-72 Ill. Laws 552-56. There are two types of actions under the Illinois DSA. The first, "by" or "direct" actions allow all persons who are injured, in person or in property by someone who is intoxicated, a cause of action individually against any person who by selling alcoholic liquor, causes the intoxication of the person caus- ing the injury. For example, an assault or an automobile collision where the direct act of an intoxicated person causes injury is considered a "by" cause of action. See Mul- lin,Overview of the Act/Defenses, DRAM SHOP/STRUCTURAL WORK ACT (IICLE) § 1.5 to 1.7 (1976). "In consequence" actions arise when an intoxicated person causes inju- ries to the means of the plaintiff's support. For example, a wife of an injured victim of a drunk driver has an "in consequence" action if the accident is caused by the driver's intoxication. Id. at § 1.9. See also Moran, Actions Under Illinois Dram Shop Act: Theories of Liability, U. ILL. L.F. 191 (1958) (discusses various theories advo- cated by attorneys seeking to escape the confines of the DSA). 7. See Ogilvie, History and Appraisal of the Illinois Dram Shop Act, U. ILL. L.F. 175, 181 (1958) (reviews history of DSA from enactment in 1872 until 1958) [hereinafter cited as History and Appraisal]. 8. See Cunningham v. Brown, 22 II. 2d 23, 30, 174 N.E.2d 153, 157 (1961) (lack of common law precedent motivated the legislature). 9. 127 Ill. 231, 20 N.E. 73 (1889) (held that no cause of action exists under the Act against one not engaged in the sale of intoxicating liquors). 10. Heldt v. Brei, 118 Ill. App. 3d 798, 800, 455 N.E.2d 842, 843 (1983) (common law cause of action sought against social host); Wienke v. Champaign County Grain Ass'n, 113 Ill. App. 3d 1005, 1008, 447 N.E.2d 1388, 1390 (1983) (noted that Aden recognized that no common law tort liability arises from furnishing liquor to a strong and able bodied man); Miller v. Moran, 96 Ill. App. 3d 596, 598, 421 N.E.2d 1046, 1047 (1981) (serving of alcoholic liquors to social guests does not create potential lia- bility to third parties). 11. Cunningham v. Brown, 22 Ill. 2d 23, 174 N.E.2d 153 (1961) (widow sued tavern operator who supplied liquor to husband who became despondent and took his own life). 12. Id. 1985] Illinois' Dram Shop Act Assembly have sufficiently re-examined policy considerations behind the DSA and its impact on society.' 3 Numerous plaintiffs, however, have presented meritorious claims requesting that a distinct com- mon law action be recognized apart from the DSA.' 4 In each case the appellate courts have deferred the question to the legislature or have asked the supreme court to re-evaluate the law.' 5 Contrary to the Illinois courts' conclusions, other jurisdictions have expanded both statutory and common law remedies involving dram shop lia- bility.'6 Moreover, the Seventh Circuit and one Illinois appellate de- cision have recognized a non-statutory cause of action against dram shop operators based upon interpretations of the Illinois common law." Despite the continuous evolution of the common law in other areas, the Illinois Supreme Court and General Assembly have appar- ently decided to leave the DSA in the antiquated form in which it was originally enacted.' 8 This comment will analyze the origins of 13. The supreme court has only reviewed its decision in Cunningham on two occasions. See Demchuk v. Duplancich, 92 Ill. 2d 1, 440 N.E.2d 112 (1982); Graham v. United States Grant Post, 43 Ill. 2d 1, 248 N.E.2d 657 (1969). In Demchuk, the court summarily affirmed its prior holding in Cunningham, stating that the statutory dram shop action is the exclusive remedy in Illinois against tavern operators. Demchuk, 92 I1l.2d at 10, 440 N.E.2d at 116. The Demchuk court, however, refused to review the merits of the plaintiff's case in any detail. In Graham, the court stated the plaintiff's contention was without merit because the precise issue of common law negligence for selling alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person was definitively decided in Cun- ningham. Graham, 43 Ill.
Recommended publications
  • Liquor Liability 2019 Update
    LIQUOR LIABILITY 2 019 UPDATE CONTENTS 1 ALABAMA 60 LOUISIANA 117 OKLAHOMA 5 ALASKA 63 MAINE 119 OREGON 7 ARIZONA 67 MARYLAND 125 PENNSYLVANIA 11 ARKANSAS 70 MASSACHUSETTS 129 RHODE ISLAND 13 CALIFORNIA 73 MICHIGAN 132 SOUTH CAROLINA 17 COLORADO 80 MINNESOTA 133 SOUTH DAKOTA 20 CONNECTICUT 84 MISSISSIPPI 134 TENNESSEE 24 DELAWARE 87 MISSOURI 136 TEXAS 26 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 90 MONTANA 139 UTAH 29 FLORIDA 93 NEBRASKA 143 VERMONT 33 GEORGIA 94 NEVADA 147 VIRGINIA 36 HAWAII 96 NEW HAMPSHIRE 148 WASHINGTON 39 IDAHO 101 NEW JERSEY 152 WEST VIRGINIA 43 ILLINOIS 104 NEW MEXICO 153 WISCONSIN 48 INDIANA 107 NEW YORK 156 WYOMING 51 IOWA 110 NORTH CAROLINA 158 Offices 56 KANSAS 113 NORTH DAKOTA 57 KENTUCKY 115 OHIO Wilson Elser (www.wilsonelser.com) helps individuals and organizations transcend challenges and realize goals by offering an optimal balance of legal excellence and bottom-line value. More than 800 attorneys strong, Wilson Elser serves clients of all sizes, across multiple industries and around the world. Wilson Elser has 37 strategically located offices in the United States and one in London. It is also a founding member of Legalign Global, a close alliance of four of the world’s leading insurance law firms, created to assist companies doing business internationally. This depth and scale has made it one of the nation’s most influential law firms, ranked in the Am Law 200 and 53rd in the The National Law Journal’s NLJ 500. LIQUOR LIABILITY REVIEW 2019 UPDATE LIQUOR LIABILITY 2019 UPDATE ALABAMA Alabama 1. STATUTE Alabama’s Dram Shop Act, Ala.
    [Show full text]
  • Food & Beverage Litigation Survey
    Food & Beverage Litigation Survey Vibe Beverage Conference March, 2010 Las Vegas, Nevada Prepared by Elizabeth A. DeConti, Esq. in support of the presentation Ensuring Responsible Service at the Bar….and at the Table By Elizabeth A. DeConti, Esq. and Stephen Barth Elizabeth A. DeConti, Esq. Gray Robinson, P.A. (813) 273-5159 [email protected] Stephen Barth HospitalityLawyer.com Conrad N.Hilton College, University of Houston (713) 963-8800 [email protected] PREFACE Every year, literally thousands of liability claims are filed against food and beverage providers. These claims include allegations of improper service of alcohol, inappropriate preparation techniques for food items, and the failure to properly warn consumers of a potential circumstance, such as an ingredient that a reasonable person would not usually expect to find in a food or beverage product. The vast majority of these claims will be resolved before they ever reach the trial level (it is estimated that 95% of all claims are resolved prior to trial). Of those that are tried, a small percentage of those will be appealed. It is the cases that are appealed (also referred to as “reported cases” that become significant to attorneys to help guide them and their clients on the best ways to avoid potential liability. The following paper includes a description of major reported lawsuits (cases that went to trial and for one reason or another were appealed) that were decided in 2009. These cases were selected because of their potential significance to the industry. Every attempt was made to explain the concepts, facts and decisions without the use of legalese.
    [Show full text]
  • Social Host Liability to Third Parties for the Acts of Intoxicated Adult Guests: Kelly V
    SMU Law Review Volume 38 Issue 5 Article 6 1984 Social Host Liability to Third Parties for the Acts of Intoxicated Adult Guests: Kelly v. Gwinnell C. Kent Adams Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation C. Kent Adams, Note, Social Host Liability to Third Parties for the Acts of Intoxicated Adult Guests: Kelly v. Gwinnell, 38 SW L.J. 1297 (1984) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol38/iss5/6 This Case Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. NOTE SOCIAL HOST LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES FOR THE ACTS OF INTOXICATED ADULT GUESTS: KELLY v. GWINNELL ONALD Gwinnell consumed several drinks while at the home of the Joseph Zaks. Gwinnell left the Zaks' home shortly before 9:00 p.m. and was involved in a head-on collision while driving home.' The collision seriously injured the driver of the other car, Marie E. Kelly. Kelly sued Gwinnell and, under a respondeat superior theory, Gwinnell's employer. 2 Gwinnell and his employer sued the Zaks in a third-party action. Kelly later amended her complaint to name the Zaks as primary defendants. The Zaks obtained a summary judgment on the grounds that, as a matter of law, a social host is not liable to third parties for the negligent acts of an adult guest who has become intoxicated at the host's home.
    [Show full text]
  • American Prohibition Year Book for 1910
    UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA LIBRARY KtS THIS VOLUME m ^,„^ REVIEWED FOR mmwwa Or-:-- B^ pHESERVftTION DATEt |2^|i|i( " American Prohibition Year Book For 1910 Two hundred and fifty pages of the Latest Data, Tables, Diagrams, Fact and Argu- ment, Condensed for Ready Reference. ILLUSTRATED Editors CHARLES R. JONES ^^-• ^-A) ALONZO E. WILSOI^ V FRED^^Lpk^UIRES_.,.. cents P^I^^r i^nts ; Pai)ei;;\ per dozen, Cloth, 50 ; ^ ^ Vv" $2.^W^ostpaid) ' fN ^t-' Published by S. \ THE NATIONAL PROHfBKTigN PRESS 92LaSalle-Street, qiJc^slU. \ ^ \ ' » - \^:^v^ Copyright, 1910, by the National Prohibition Press, 4 General Neal Bow. Patriot, prophet, warrior, statesman, reformer; author of the Maine Law, 1851, the first state-wide prohibition statute; Prohibition candidate for Presi- dent .in 1880; born, March 20, 1804; died, October 4, 1897. " Every branch of legitimate trade has a direct pecuniary interest in the absolute suppression of the liquor traffic. Every man engaged, directly or in- directly, in the liquor trade, whether he knows it and means it or not, is an enemy to society in all its interests, and inflicts a mischief upon every in- ' dividual in it. The trade ' is an infinite evil to the country and an infinite misery to the people." 2 — — ! After Forty Years. [Written in honor of the fortieth anniversary of the National Prohi- bition movement celebrated in Chicago Sept. 24.^1909.] The faith that keeps on fighting is the one That keeps on living—yes, and growing great! The hope that sees the work yet to be done, The patience that can bid the soul to wait These three—faith, hope and patience—they have made The record of the years that swiftly sped.
    [Show full text]
  • Dram Shop Liability to Apply
    COMPARISON OFOFOF STATE LIQUOR LIABILITY LAWS (DRAM SHOP ACTS) STATE STATUTE(S) STANDARD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ALABAMA ALA . CODE § 6-5-71. Selling, giving or disposing of alcoholic ALA . CODE § 20-X-6-.02 . The Alabama Administrative Code Unlawful sale, etc., right of beverages to another, contrary to the contains a provision prohibiting any licensee, employee, or agent action in injured party. provisions of law. from serving alcoholic beverages to any person who appears, considering the totality of the circumstances, to be intoxicated. A Plaintiff only need prove the injury was in person injured by his own intoxication cannot recover. Maples v. consequence of intoxication due to the Chinese Palace, Inc. , 389 So. 2d. 120 (ALA 1980) . unlawful sale of alcohol. ALA. CODE § 6-5-7(a) To allow a plaintiff's contributory negligence or participation by drinking to bar the plaintiff's recovery would be contrary to the purpose of the McIsaac v. Monte Carlo Club, Inc ., 587 So.2d 320 (Ala. 1991). ALASKA ALASKA STAT . § 4.21.020. A liquor licensee, or agent or employee of that Contributory negligence is not a defense to negligence per se Civil liability of persons licensee may not provide alcoholic beverages based upon a violation of § 4-21-020. providing alcoholic to a person under age 21 or to a drunken It is not a defense that the plaintiffs voluntarily consumed alcohol beverages. person. To do so is criminal negligence [check and was voluntarily under the influence of the alcoholic beverage. this] . § 4-21-020(c). Revised: August 2007 COMPARISON OF STATE LIQUOR LIABILITY LAWS Page 1 © Cozen O’Connor.
    [Show full text]
  • Missouri Historical Review
    MISSOURI HISTORICAL REVIEW CONTE Legal and Illegal Sales of Liquor in Boone County North Todd Gentry The Early History of Lead Mining in Missouri, Part I Ruby Johnson Swartzlow The Development of Fiction on the Missouri Frontier (1830-1860), Part I Carle Brooks Spotts Joseph B. McCullagh, Part XV Walter B. Stevens Missouriana Historical Notes and Comments Missouri History Not Found in Textbooks PtrBlisJRe "jrlv & 5TATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY o^MISSOURI VOL. XXVIII APRIL, 1934 No. 3 OFFICERS OF THE STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF MISSOURI, 1932-1935 GEORGE A. MAHAN, Hannibal, President. EDWARD J. WHITE, St. Louis, First Vice-President. WALTER B. STEVENS, St. Louis, Second Vice-President. C. H. McCLURE, Kirksville, Third Vice-President. CORNELIUS ROACH, Kansas City, Fourth Vice-President. B. M. LITTLE, Lexington, Fifth Vice-President. ALLEN McREYNOLDS, Carthage, Sixth Vice-President. R. B. PRICE, Columbia, Treasurer. FLOYD C. SHOEMAKER, Secretary and Librarian. BOARD OF TRUSTEES Term Expires at Annual Meeting, 1934 C. P. DORSEY, Cameron. W. J. SEWALL, Carthage. EUGENE FAIR, Kirksville. H. S. STURGIS, Neosho. THEODORE GARY, Kansas City. JONAS VILES, Columbia. GEORGE A. MAHAN, Hannibal. R. M. WHITE, Mexico. WM. R. PAINTER, Carrollton. Term Expires at Annual Meeting, 1935 T. H. B. DUNNEGAN, Bolivar. E. E. SWAIN, Kirksville. BEN L. EMMONS, St. Charles. JOHN ROTHENSTEINER, STEPHEN B. HUNTER, St. Louis. Cape Girardeau. CHAS. H. WHITAKER, Clinton. ISIDOR LOEB, St. Louis. ROY D. WILLIAMS, Boonville. Term Expires at Annual Meeting, 1936 PHIL A. BENNETT, Springfield. ELMER O. JONES, LaPlata. W. E. CROWE, DeSoto. HENRY KRUG, JR., St. Joseph. FORREST C. DONNELL, WM. SOUTHERN, JR., St. Louis.
    [Show full text]
  • Alcohol Server Liability Law Suits Result from Dram Shop Statutes James M
    Hospitality Review Volume 4 Article 1 Issue 1 Hospitality Review Volume 4/Issue 1 1-1-1986 Alcohol Server Liability Law Suits Result From Dram Shop Statutes James M. Goldberg Abrams, Westermeier and Goldberg, P.C. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview Part of the Hospitality Administration and Management Commons Recommended Citation Goldberg, James M. (1986) "Alcohol Server Liability Law Suits Result From Dram Shop Statutes," Hospitality Review: Vol. 4 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview/vol4/iss1/1 This work is brought to you for free and open access by FIU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hospitality Review by an authorized administrator of FIU Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Alcohol Server Liability Law Suits Result From Dram Shop Statutes Abstract The ounc try is experiencing a trend of alcohol server liability law suits resulting from dram shop statutes and common law liability, relatively recent developments in the field of tort law. The uthora , an expert on liquor liability law, explores the meaning of this trend for the hospitality industry. Keywords James M. Goldberg, Alcohol Sewer Liability Law Suits Result From Dram Shop Statutes, Tort law, BAC [blood alcohol content], Liability, Bar, Insurance pools This article is available in Hospitality Review: https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/hospitalityreview/vol4/iss1/1 Alcohol Sewer Liability Law Suits Result From Dram Shop Statutes by James M. Goldberg Abrams, Westermeier & Goldberg, P.C. Washington, D.C. The country is experiencing a trend of alcohol server liability law suits resulting from dram shop statutes and common law liability, relatively re- cent developments in the field of tort law.
    [Show full text]
  • Torts, Insurance & Compensation Law Section Journal
    NYSBA SPRING 2008 | VOL. 37 | NO. 1 Torts, Insurance & Compensation Law Section Journal A publication of the Torts, Insurance and Compensation Law Section of the New York State Bar Association IInsidenside • Jury Trials • Notable Cases in the Appellate Courts • Will Change to GOL § 15-108 Promote Settlements? Your key to professional success… A wealth of practical resources at www.nysba.org • Downloadable Forms organized into common And now . practice areas the Torts, Insurance & • Comprehensive practice management tools Compensation Law Section • Forums/listserves for Journal has a new online look! Sections and Committees • More than 800 Ethics Opinions • NYSBA Reports – the substantive work of the Association • Legislative information with timely news feeds • Online career services for job seekers and employers • Free access to several case law libraries – exclusively for members The practical tools you Go to www.nysba.org/TICLJournal need. The resources you to access: demand. Available right • Past Issues (2000-present) of the TICL Journal* now. • TICL Journal Searchable Index (2000-present) • Searchable articles from the TICL Journal that include links to cites and statutes. This service is Our members deserve provided by Loislaw and is an exclusive Section nothing less. member benefi t* *You must be a Torts, Insurance and Compensation Law Section member and logged in to access. Need password assistance? Visit our Web site at www.nysba.org/pwhelp. For questions or log-in help, call (518) 463-3200. For more information on these and many other resources go to www.nysba.org TICL Journal Volume 37, No. 1 Spring 2008 Issue Copyright 2008 by the New York State Bar Association ISSN 1530-390X (print) ISSN 1933-8503 (online) Torts, Insurance and Com pen sa tion Law Section Offi cers and Committee Chairs Chair TICL Journal Co-Editors Committee Chairs Daniel W.
    [Show full text]
  • Recent Developments in Aviation Law Donald R
    Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 74 | Issue 1 Article 10 2009 Recent Developments in Aviation Law Donald R. Andersen Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc Recommended Citation Donald R. Andersen, Recent Developments in Aviation Law, 74 J. Air L. & Com. 153 (2009) https://scholar.smu.edu/jalc/vol74/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Air Law and Commerce by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN AVIATION LAW DONALD R. ANDERSEN* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. MONTREAL AND WARSAW CONVENTIONS .... 155 A. MONTREAL CONVENTION ........................ 155 1. Parties Liable ................................ 155 2. Exclusive Cause of Action .................... 162 3. A ccident .................................... 168 4. Venue ....................................... 172 5. Limitation of Actions ........................ 175 6. Damages ............................. 176 B. WARSAW CONVENTION ............................. 179 1. Exclusive Cause of Action .................... 179 2. Warsaw Notice Requirements.................. 183 3. "Carriageby Air" .... ....................... 184 4. "Accident" ....... ........................... 186 5. Embarking and Disembarking................. 188 6. Dam ages .................................... 191 II. AIR CARRIER LIABILITY .......................... 192 III. FOREIGN SOVEREIGN IMMUNITIES
    [Show full text]
  • Making Liquor Immunity Worse: Nevada's Undue Protection Of
    \\jciprod01\productn\N\NVJ\14-3\NVJ313.txt unknown Seq: 1 20-MAY-14 14:31 MAKING LIQUOR IMMUNITY WORSE: NEVADA’S UNDUE PROTECTION OF COMMERCIAL HOSTS EVICTING VULNERABLE AND DANGEROUS PATRONS Jeffrey W. Stempel* INTRODUCTION It’s no secret that entertainment and recreation in Nevada—much of it alcohol fueled—is big business. Much of the state’s economic activity involves hotels, restaurants, bars, shows, outdoor recreation, and related pursuits, with booze commonly a part of the experience in the form of drinks with dinner, drinks with the show, drinks in the golf cart, and so on.1 Not surprisingly, this prominence has made the resort industry and its alcohol-related components economically, politically, and legally powerful. Booze is money in much the same way that oil is money, mineral rights are money, a gaming license is money, and so on. Liquor manufacturers and ven- dors are among the wealthiest merchants in society. Unsurprisingly, with wealth comes stature and power, albeit often with at least some regulation and supervision. The liquor industry is more heavily regulated than most enter- prises, but tends (like other wealthy businesses) to come out ahead in its politi- cal, economic, social, and legal battles. There is, to be sure, a countervailing reaction that emerges on occasion— the “hate” half of America’s love-hate relationship with liquor. The apparently frequent alcohol-fueled violence and disruption of nineteenth century America set the stage for the amazing over-reaction of Prohibition. A more productive example of alcohol regulation has been the move to reduce alcohol-related driving injuries, especially among the young.
    [Show full text]
  • Each Entry Is Annotated, Editions Are Frequently Noted, and Paperback Availability Is Indicated
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 083 597 CS 200 745 AUTHOR Lueders, Edward, Ed. TITLE The College and Adult Reading List of Books in Literature and the Fine Arts. INSTITUTION National Council of Teachers of English, Champaign, Ill. PUB DATE 67 NOTE 466p.; Published by Washington Square Press AVAILABLE FROMNational Council of Teachers of English, 1111 Kenyon Road, Urbana, Ill. 61801(Stock No. 42607, $0.90 non-member, $0.75 member) EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$16.45 DESCRIPTORS Adult Education; *Annotated Bibliographies; *Art; Art Appreciation; Bibliographies; *Books; *Literature; Literature Appreciation; *Music; Paperback Books; Reading; Reading Materials ABSTRACT The 760 books included in this reading list are judged "especially valuable, important, and rewarding for intelligent, interested, but esentially nonprofessional, college and adult readers." Each entry is annotated, editions are frequently noted, and paperback availability is indicated. The books are arranged according to subject--literature, music, and art--and each subject is further divided into more specific topics, e.g., American fiction, British literary criticism, linguistics. (This document previously announced as ED 029 021.) (LH) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION B WELFARE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REPRO The College DUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE PERSON OR ORGANIZATION ORIGIN ATING IT POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS and STATED DD NOT NECESSARILY REPRE SFN T OFFICIAL NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF Adult Reading List EDUCATION POSITION OR POLICY. of BOOKS IN LITERATURE and op CD THE FINE ARTS EDWARD LUEDERS Editorial Chairman Prepared by the Committee (»I College and Adult Reading List of the NATIONAL COUNCIL OF TEACHERS OF ENGLISH r- WSP WASHINGTON SQUARE PRESS.
    [Show full text]
  • Dram Shop and Social Host Liability Laws
    Dram Shop and Social Host Liability Laws allowing liability of establishments arising out of the sale of alcohol to obviously intoxicated persons or minors who subsequently cause death or injury to third-parties as a result of alcohol-related crashes. • Dram shop liability laws reduce alcohol-related crashes. Texas experienced a 6.5 percent decrease in single vehicle nighttime crashes resulting in injury immediately after a liability case was filed in 1983, and an additional 5.3 percent decrease after another case was filed in 1984.i In 2001, researchers found a 5.8 percent decrease in fatal crashes from dram shop liability laws.ii Other studies have found a similar deterrent effect from dram shop liability by three to five percent.iii,iv,v,vi This is because this liability makes it in the economic best interest of establishments to have responsible serving practices. • Dram shop laws increase publicity of the impacts of over-serving. Studies show that states that have a high level of dram shop liability have more publicity about the impacts of liability and have more servers and managers who are aware of liability.vii,viii • Dram shop laws decrease excessive and illegal consumption. Studies have found that states with high levels of dram shop liability also had fewer lower-price drink promotions (like “happy hours”) that encourage excessive consumption in a limited amount of time. ixx This is important, because access to an unlimited amount of alcohol for a flat fee increases the number of drinks in a sitting by 1.6 drinks on average.xi States with dram shop liability also had more thorough checks of identification on average, which means that fewer minors were able to drink illegally.xii This is an accomplishment, considering that US purchase surveys show that 40 to 90 percent of outlets sell to underage buyersxiii,xiv,xv and that this stems from low and inconsistent levels of enforcement against adults who sell or provide alcohol.xvi,xvii • Dram shop laws do not decrease personal responsibility.
    [Show full text]