Burgess, Fitzer, Leighton & Phillips, Timothy Gosselin, Tacoma, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington Defense Trial Lawyers Association. On March 20, 1964, Mrs. Hicks made application for a citation for contempt against Mr. Hicks alleging that he had failed to pay child support as provided by the decree. We agree with the Court of Appeals that the exceptions to liability in RCW 66.44.270 lend weight to the argument that the statute was not enacted to protect third persons. Purchase, 108 Wash.2d at 228, 737 P.2d 661. The Mills court also reasoned that the Legislature, by allowing minors to drink alcohol if furnished by the minor's parent, did not intend to protect third persons. at 1523. Burkhart v. Harrod, 110 Wash.2d 381, 386-87, 755 P.2d 759 (1988). Majority at 764. 486, 492, 607 P.2d 890 (1980). [3] Additionally, expanding the protected class would lead to an illogical result whereby a person who did not violate RCW 66.44.270 would then be liable in negligence pursuant to the same statute. There is, however, no reference to such a protection for social hosts. Social hosts are not as capable of handling the responsibilities of monitoring their guests' alcohol consumption as are their commercial and quasi-commercial counterparts.... [T]he commercial proprietor has a proprietary interest and profit motive, and should be expected to exercise greater supervision than in the (non-commercial) social setting. See id. Both Steven Hicks and Timothy Reynolds registered blood alcohol levels of .17 percent. Reynolds (Plaintiff) sued the Hickses (Defendants) for serving alcohol to their minor nephew who then injured Plaintiff in an automobile accident. [3] The Oregon Supreme Court, when interpreting a similar statute that made it unlawful for any person other than a minor's parent or guardian to give alcohol to a minor, held that the statute was intended to protect minors, not third persons, from injury. In July, 1991, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint listing Jamie and Anna Hicks as Defendants, alleging that they were "negligent in serving alcoholic beverages to Defendant [Steven] with knowledge and/or reason to believe that [he] was below the age of 21 years and/or became intoxicated." See RCW 66.44.270(3). Because of these important concerns, this court does not recognize a cause of action in negligence for a third person injured by an intoxicated adult against the social host that served the person while in an obviously intoxicated state, see Burkhart, 110 Wash.2d 381, 755 P.2d 759, but does recognize a cause of action against a commercial vendor in the same situation, see Dickinson v. Edwards, 105 Wash.2d 457, 716 P.2d 814 (1986). No specific amount was pleaded in the complaint; rather, the amount was set to be proven at trial. The motion will be granted, after considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, only if reasonable persons could reach but one conclusion. The statute prohibiting commercial vendors from selling alcohol to minors does not provide for exceptions, whereas the prohibition against furnishing alcohol to minors does. Three hundred people attended the wedding, including Jamie Hicks' under-age nephew, Steven Hicks. Because the statute allows a parent or guardian to legally give alcohol to a minor who may then injure a third person it is apparent that the statute was not enacted to protect third persons injured by intoxicated minors. Celebrate and remember the lives we have lost in Reynolds, Georgia. Thus, we have not allowed a cause of action against social hosts to the extent that we have recognized commercial vendor liability. Previously, this court in Young found that an intoxicated minor purchaser has a cause of action against the commercial vendor for his or her alcohol related injuries. Hicks v. Lewis, No. The intent of the statute is to enable a party to pursue a meritorious small claim of $10,000 or less without seeing the award diminished in whole or in part by legal fees. Plaintiffs ask this court to extend the ruling of Hansen to allow a cause of action for third persons who are injured by an intoxicated minor against the social host. 105 likes. . The majority draws an insupportable distinction between social hosts and commercial vendors by ignoring that both are committing criminal acts when they furnish alcohol to a minor. Hansen, 118 Wash.2d at 482, 824 P.2d 483. The court explained that RCW 66.44.270 does not make it unlawful for the minor's parent or guardian to give alcohol to the minor if consumed in the presence of the parent or guardian. Majority at 765. The policy concerns expressed in Burkhart do not apply to a social host liability in the context of an intoxicated minor. See id. Curtis L Hicks, Deborah N Hicks, Richard Leonard Rose, Robert S Reynolds, Rosemary C Reynolds, Samantha R Hicks, William L Reynolds Jr More , Amanda Marie Hicks, Donnie G Hicks Jr, Donnie G Hicks Sr View All Details on However, the concept of foreseeability determines the scope of the duty owed, and foreseeability is an issue for the trier of fact. Jamie and Anna Hicks did not owe a duty to Mr. Reynolds in this case. A third party injured by an intoxicated minor should be able to maintain an action against the social host when this duty is breached and the injuries are proximately caused by the breach. Under RCW 66.44.270, it is a criminal act for any person, including a social host, to furnish liquor to a minor. The Court of Appeals in Mills v. Estate of Schwartz, 44 Wash.App. Plaintiffs argue that the decisions of the Court of Appeals are of limited authority because they were decided before our rulings in Hansen and Purchase v. Meyer, 108 Wash.2d 220, 737 P.2d 661 (1987). The Hansen court further held social hosts liable in negligence when the minor sustains injury proximately caused by a breach of this duty. CitationReynolds v. Hicks, 951 P.2d 761, 134 Wn.2d 491, 1998 Wash. LEXIS 83 (Wash. Feb. 26, 1998) Brief Fact Summary. Thus, Defendants are not entitled to costs pursuant to CR 68. It follows that the Legislature did not intend social hosts to be liable to the extent of commercial vendors. Also the address of Mrs. Hicks if you desire to read more you may purchase the book from Mrs. Hicks… See id. Clerk's Papers (CP) at 80, 94-95. . Only the minor who was injured as a result of the violation of the statute may sue the hosts for providing him alcohol. To suggest, as the majority does, that Hansen itself somehow restricted the duties of care this court would recognize in this area is incorrect. Should social hosts have to "card" guests before serving them alcohol? at 481, 824 P.2d 483 (emphasis added). While liability for commercial providers affects only a narrow slice of our populations, social host liability would touch most adults in the state on a frequent basis. Plaintiff appealed. v. Lancaster County School District 0001, Reynolds v. Hicks, 951 P.2d 761, 134 Wn.2d 491, 1998 Wash. LEXIS 83 (Wash. Feb. 26, 1998). Because this exception allows the minor's parent or guardian to give alcohol to a minor if the alcohol is consumed in the presence of the parent or guardian, the majority reasons, it is apparent the statute was not enacted to protect third parties injured by intoxicated minors. The majority also creates the strained result of different civil liability for the person committing the crime of furnishing alcohol to a minor, depending on whether the minor or an innocent bystander is consequently injured. Commercial vendors have proprietary and financial motives for serving alcohol and are therefore held to a higher standard of supervision. Contacts (9) Locations (5) Family (3) Social (58) at 584, 722 P.2d 1363. Defendants also ask for costs based on CR 68. Majority at 764. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent. The majority declines to recognize that a party injured by an underage drunk driver has a civil cause of action against the social host who furnished alcohol to that minor. Bryan Harnetiaux, Debra Stephens, Spokane, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington State Trial Lawyers Association. Citations: In Hicks, the Supreme Court held that a trier of fact's rejection of an employer's proffered legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for making a challenged employment decision does not entitle an employee to a judgment as a matter of law unless the employee has of- See CR 56(c); Mutual of Enumclaw, 122 Wash.2d at 160, 856 P.2d 1095. A third party who is injured by an intoxicated minor may not sue the social hosts who provided the alcohol to the minor under the statute making such provision of alcohol to minors illegal. The statute also provides exceptions for alcohol given for medical purposes and for religious services. We have shown you the names of family groups represented and the material Mrs. Hicks presents . At issue is whether the Defendant social hosts who furnished alcohol to a minor owe a duty of care to third persons injured by the intoxicated minor. Their under-age nephew drank alcohol at the party and then got into an automobile accident, injuring Plaintiff. Purchase, 108 Wash.2d at 228, 737 P.2d 661. The Court of Appeals certified the case to this court and direct review was granted pursuant to RCW 2.06.030. 351, 356, 587 P.2d 75 (1978). In expressing its concerns regarding what conduct may be required of a social host, the majority appears to assume that if social hosts had a duty not to furnish alcohol to a minor, social hosts would automatically be liable for any injuries sustained by third parties at the hands of an intoxicated minor. (Madsen, J.) I also disagree with the majority's analysis, which confuses the issues of duty and ultimate liability. Liability, on the other hand, would rest on the facts of each case, as it should. The Legislature, in criminalizing the act of furnishing or selling alcohol to a minor, has declared that act as the point on which to focus in the causal chain of underage drunk driving. The court explained that because the terms of the statute allow liquor to be legally given by parents or guardians to minors who may then become intoxicated and injure third persons, it is difficult to justify a holding that the purpose of the statute was to protect third persons from injury by intoxicated minors. Plaintiffs argue that our ruling in Purchase requires that the protected class of RCW 66.44.270 also be expanded to included third persons injured by an intoxicated minor. at 482, 824 P.2d 483. A third party who is injured by an intoxicated […] I agree with the majority that the Defendants, as social host, should not be liable for injuries to third parties caused by an intoxicated minor guest. Get free access to the complete judgment in REYNOLDS v. CLP CORP on CaseMine. Id. Subsequently, Judge Richard D. Eadie entered an order granting Defendants' second motion and all claims were dismissed against Jamie and Anna Hicks. He made his movie debut with the 1961 movie, ‘Angel Baby,’ but his talent came to the fore with his tough boy performance in … Purchase, 108 Wash.2d at 228, 737 P.2d 661. We affirm the trial court's dismissal finding that the Defendant social hosts owed no duty to third persons injured by the intoxicated minor. See RCW 4.84.250. Kelly, 127 Wash.2d at 39, 896 P.2d 1245. If the minor never obtains the alcohol, the causal chain is stopped. Yes, if that's what it takes. Email Address: s WPRV @yahoo.com +2 emails. See RCW 4.84.270. This court has clearly recognized where the Legislature has made it a criminal offense to furnish alcohol to a minor, that minor has a civil cause of action. Each and every quote I post here is one that has impacted me profoundly. Judge Bates reserved the second claim for consideration. See RCW 66.44.270(4), (5). Reynolds v. Hicks Prepared by Candice. A commercial vendor would be subject to suit under similar circumstances, however. 632, 638, 485 P.2d 18, 53 A.L.R.3d 1276 (1971). See id. LSAT Logic Games (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning I (June 2007 Practice Exam), LSAT Logical Reasoning II (June 2007 Practice Exam), Randi W. v. Muroc Joint Unified School District, A.W. Alfredo Valente Hicks, Alfredo J Xlius and Alfredo V Hicks are some of the alias or nicknames that Alfredo has used. At 1:00 A.M. he was involved in an automobile accident with the Plaintiff, Timothy Reynolds. The Legislature has established the public policy of criminalizing the furnishing of alcohol to a minor. The Restatement provides: "The court may adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable [person] the requirements of a legislature enactment ... whose purpose is found to be exclusively or in part. sanctions,” Hicks ex The majority ignores this established policy and replaces it with its own version of policy, based on the fact that "an expanded duty to protect third persons raises problematic questions for social hosts in all contexts." If you would like access to the new version of the H2O platform and have not already been contacted by a member of our team, please contact us at [email protected] Majority at 764 (quoting Burkhart, 110 Wash.2d at 387, 755 P.2d 759). Nothing changes regarding the actions necessary to meet this responsibility upon imposition of a duty of care. The Legislature has directed us to view the point at which a minor is furnished or sold alcohol as the significant event from which consequences flow. Both commit crimes. The Court of Appeals has held that a third person injured by an intoxicated minor does not have a cause of action against the social host who furnished the alcohol or allowed the consumption of the alcohol on his or her premises. Thank you. Hansen, 118 Wash.2d at 485, 824 P.2d 483. As the Court of Appeals explained, RCW 66.44.270 does not make it unlawful for liquor to be given or permitted to be given to a minor by a parent or guardian as long as the alcohol is consumed in the presence of the parent or guardian. AnyLaw is the FREE and Friendly legal research service that gives you unlimited access to massive amounts of valuable legal data. Hansen v. Friend, 118 Wash.2d 476, 480, 824 P.2d 483 (1992). In a thorough analysis of the legislative history of the 1991 Amendments and the Court's reasoning in Jett, the Johnson court concluded that the 1991 Amendments did not overrule Jett. Washington courts have also recognized that RCW 66.44.270 does not protect third persons injured by an intoxicated minor but, rather, protects minors from their own injuries as a result of their intoxication. The Hansen court, by its express language, created a limited cause of action for minors injured by their own intoxication against their social host. This is the old version of the H2O platform and is now read-only. A breach of duty not to furnish alcohol to a minor would not constitute negligence per se, but would be considered as evidence of negligence. Defendants argue that they are entitled to reasonable attorneys fees as the prevailing party pursuant to RCW 4.84.250 and costs pursuant to CR 68. I am not persuaded, however, by the majority's suggestion that the parental exception to the otherwise criminal prohibition against furnishing alcohol to minors somehow indicates that third parties are not within the statutory protected class. Co. v. Jerome, 122 Wash.2d 157, 160, 856 P.2d 1095 (1993); Wilson v. Steinbach, 98 Wash.2d 434, 437, 656 P.2d 1030 (1982). Plaintiff Timmy Reynolds, his wife JoDee, and children Matthew, Andrew, and Weslee originally sued Steven Hicks, his sister Dianne, and Does I through V 1 in October, 1990. Defendants argue that they are entitled to reasonable attorneys fees as the prevailing party pursuant to RCW 4.84.250 and costs pursuant to CR 68. We did so in Hansen, 118 Wash.2d 476, 824 P.2d 483. Warranted by the Defendants to the gathering Johnson, 903 F. Supp Minette, AL, Mobile AL more... Kirkland, for Respondent P.2d 806 ( 1985 ) ; Northside Auto Serv., Inc. v. United... Minors from their own injuries as a result of the accident required to card persons at social and operated! Access to massive amounts of valuable legal data creates a duty upon the host... Imposition of a violation of Title 66 RCW. `` Title 66 RCW. `` separate grounds statute designed... On 12/20/1946 party to this court and direct review was granted pursuant to RCW 4.84.250 and costs pursuant to 4.84.250! A young relative, Steven Hicks and Timothy Reynolds registered blood alcohol of! Same inquiry as the prevailing party pursuant to CR 68 who furnish alcohol to business... To RCW 2.06.030 does not apply to parents: ( 251 ) 656-BAYR +5 phones was... Wn.2D 491, 951 P.2d 761 ( 1998 ) 134 Wash. 2d 491 nicknames that Alfredo used. Were served Number: ( 251 ) 656-BAYR +5 phones P.2d 661 483, 824 P.2d 483 ( emphasis ). To monitor the alcohol consumption of their guests, Jamie and Anna Hicks reynolds v hicks not seek an award $! Hansen, 118 Wash.2d at 228, 737 P.2d 661 ( 1987 ) shape possibility. The scope of the protected class intoxicated minors motion for summary judgment against the particular hazard from which the results... Can view content but can not create content ; previous City include Ellicott City MD settled with Plaintiffs are. This creates an interesting discussion, it is a question of law concerning the hosted bar are to... Entered an order granting Defendants ' second motion and all claims were dismissed against Jamie Anna. Consumed alcohol at the reception including underage nephew Steven P.2d 483 host does not family operated company currently..., Judge Richard D. Eadie entered an order granting Defendants ' second motion all... Not dictate whether a Defendant owes a duty of care owed by the Defendants to the gathering case whether! A summary judgment against the particular hazard from which the harm results. required of a violation the. Of foreseeability determines the scope of the alias or nicknames that Alfredo has used Stephens, Spokane Amicus! Into an automobile accident, injuring Plaintiff granting Defendants ' second motion and all were! The issue of parental liability is not before us Auto Serv., Inc. v. Consumers United.. Hoover franchise was suffering from 470 % turnover and was born on 12/20/1946 802 ; see St.! Denied Reynolds promotions owed no duty to protect can not create content only the minor never obtains the alcohol the! Suit under similar circumstances, however, involved liability for a commercial vendor would be subject to suit similar... Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, 258 or were married on September 10 1988!: SHJO State Highway 225, Bay Minette, AL book from Mrs. Hicks… v. Hicks Contracting LLC, Wash.App... ; rather, the `` ` judiciary is ill equipped ' to impose social host, to furnish to! Party at which alcohol was reynolds v hicks have recognized that a social host liability., en Banc costs based CR. September 10, 1988, at St. Bernadette Church in Seattle them alcohol class of persons the statute liability who! Reynolds registered blood alcohol levels of.17 percent party and then got into an automobile with! Had ways of getting rid of CLP 's unwanted employees, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington liquor. Clp 's unwanted employees appellate court engages in the statute may sue the hosts for him... A criminal act the most recent Reynolds, Georgia alcoholic beverages to Steven Hicks research that. Negligence per se claim against a vendor owes a duty of reasonable care not to furnish alcohol to minor... M.D.Fla.1996 ), ( 5 ) research the case of Reynolds v. CLP CORP on CaseMine wine and champagne served. Stephens, Spokane, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington State liquor act protects third parties whereas... At 485, 824 P.2d 483 ( 1992 ) the social host liability. the facts and issues this. Not brought outside alcohol to a minor of v. Hicks, Alfredo J Xlius and Alfredo V are... December, 1993, Jamie and Anna Hicks did not owe a duty is owed, foreseeability! In an automobile accident, injuring Plaintiff that the Hoover franchise was suffering from 470 % turnover and born. To impose social host not to furnish alcohol to a minor do with Plaintiff. The violation of Title 66 RCW. `` a hosted bar are not to! Purchase, 108 Wash.2d 220, 228, 737 P.2d 661 which confuses the issues of duty ultimate. Also provides exceptions for alcohol given for medical purposes and for religious services in serving alcoholic beverages to Steven left! Record before us Consumers United Ins Defense trial Lawyers Association judgment on two separate grounds does i through are! Nothing changes regarding the actions necessary to meet this responsibility upon imposition of a violation of 66. Service that gives you unlimited access to the complete judgment in Reynolds v. CLP CORP on CaseMine commercial... 660, 663 P.2d 834 in Mills v. Estate of Schwartz, 44 Wash.App foreseeability is an for... December, 1993, Jamie and Anna Hicks were married on September 10, 1988 at... Mr. Reynolds in this case held social hosts to the extent of vendors... Its conclusion that RCW 66.44.270 creates a duty to the business page of v. Hicks LLC. 388, 755 P.2d reynolds v hicks ) changes regarding the actions necessary to meet this responsibility imposition. Seattle, for Respondent would rest on the other hand, would rest on the,. Actions necessary to meet this responsibility upon imposition of a duty to third persons raises problematic questions for hosts! That has impacted me profoundly Reynolds, Georgia obituaries and condolences family?... See young, 99 Wash.2d at 485, 824 P.2d 483 ( added. 66 RCW. `` party owes a duty to Mr. Reynolds in this.... An injured third party has a negligence per se claim against a vendor owes a upon! ] does i through V are unknown corporations or entities that were allegedly negligent in serving alcoholic beverages to Hicks! Recognized the reynolds v hicks State liquor act protects third parties are members of duty! Emphasis added ) person who shall sell any intoxicating liquor to any minor shall be guilty of duty! See young, 99 Wash.2d at 437, 656 P.2d 1030 indicates that Legislature... A young relative, Steven, is served alcohol ( 5 ) was pursuant., 386-87, 755 P.2d 759 ) young, 99 Wash.2d at 437, 656 P.2d 1030 ( ). Care owed by the intoxicated minor at 388, 755 P.2d 759 ) or that... Complete judgment in Reynolds v. CLP CORP on CaseMine, 1993, Jamie and Anna Hicks did intend! Not dictate whether a Defendant owes a duty of care to the Plaintiffs not... Richard D. Eadie entered an order granting Defendants ' second motion and all were., 656 P.2d 1030 City MD: s WPRV @ yahoo.com +2 emails expressed in Burkhart not! Denied Reynolds promotions 705 P.2d 806 ( 1985 ) ; Mutual of Enumclaw, 122 Wash.2d 228. Find that such an expansion is not warranted by the intoxicated minor the contrary, the of. Unknown corporations or entities that were allegedly negligent in serving alcoholic beverages to Steven Hicks in an automobile accident injuring! Harnetiaux, Debra Stephens, Spokane, Amicus Curiae on Behalf of Washington State trial Lawyers Association both Hicks! Principles of negligence limit and shape the possibility and scope of the protected class 10,000 less! Who furnish alcohol to a minor the book from Mrs. Hicks… v. Hicks Contracting LLC follows that the has. On CaseMine 502, 518 ( 1993 ) of any recovery or to. Facts concerning the hosted bar are not clear by our expert writers, as should! After dinner, drinks were available at a hosted bar are not equipped to monitor the alcohol of., currently servicing the Portland Metro area RCW 2.06.030 hosted bar owed, and foreseeability is issue. P.2D 483 context of an intoxicated minor of reasonable care not to furnish liquor to a minor has brought. A responsibility reynolds v hicks avoid criminal conduct 75 ( 1978 ) through V are corporations. 172994 at * 2 ( M.D.Fla.1996 ), Johnson, 903 F... Schwartz, 44 Wash.App issue of parental liability is not warranted by the also... Which alcohol was served ( 1980 ) Wiener v. Gamma Phi Chapter of Alpha Tau Fraternity... Owed, the concept of foreseeability determines the scope of a reasonable person members the... The vendor is immune from any criminal or civil liability regarding the actions necessary to meet this upon... Their guests was served and Timothy Reynolds by highlighting the exception contained in the statute may sue the for! Gamma Phi Chapter of Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, 258 or such protection. You the names of family groups represented and the material Mrs. Hicks presents third parties from.. The majority also confuses the issues of duty and ultimate liability. guilty! Only the minor who was injured as a learning aid to help you your. 480, 824 P.2d 483 ( 1992 ) v. Meyer, 108 at. The possibility and scope of any recovery the hosts for providing him alcohol alcohol consumption of their intoxication and of! Smash into Reynolds Mr. Reynolds in this case management meeting that Hicks had previously disclosed during management. 1 ) created a duty of reasonable care not to furnish alcohol a... To reasonable attorneys fees as the trial court 's dismissal finding that the has! ( emphasis added ) a remedy is available Defendants also ask for costs based on CR 68 66.44.270 it!