Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1986 · Torts

TortsNegligenceAlcohol vendor liabilityProximate causedram shoptavern owner liabilitynoticeably intoxicatedcommercial vendor

Facts

According to the pleadings, Velvet Dove Restaurant, through its president and an employee, served intoxicating beverages to a group of minors, including Jeff Johnson. The defendants allegedly knew Johnson had driven the group to the restaurant, and an employee helped Johnson to his car when the group left. Plaintiffs alleged that the alcohol served by defendants caused or increased Johnson's intoxication, after which Johnson was involved in a one-car accident that injured Shawn Brigance, a minor passenger. The case came before the court on dismissal, so the pleaded facts were assumed true.

Issue

Whether, absent contrary statutory authority, an injured third-party passenger may maintain a common-law negligence action against a commercial vendor for on-premises consumption that sold alcohol to a person the vendor knew or should have known was noticeably intoxicated, where the intoxication allegedly led to the driver's impaired operation of an automobile and the plaintiff's injuries.

Rule

A commercial vendor who sells intoxicating beverages for on-premises consumption has a duty to exercise reasonable or ordinary care not to sell or furnish liquor to a noticeably intoxicated person. If the vendor breaches that duty, a third-party plaintiff must still prove that the illegal sale led to the driver's impairment, that the impairment was the proximate cause of the injury, and that there was a causal connection between the sale and a foreseeable ensuing injury. An intervening cause is supervening only if it is independent of the original act, adequate by itself to bring about the result, and not reasonably foreseeable.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a steakhouse in Tulsa, Owen Price spent two hours drinking cocktails while speaking loudly, stumbling when he stood, and slurring his words. The server saw Owen pick up his car keys and say he was driving home, then sold him one more drink; minutes later Owen crossed the center line and injured Maya Lin, a passenger in another car.

If Maya sues the steakhouse in negligence, which is the strongest argument that her complaint states a valid claim?

Explanation. The majority recognized a common-law negligence action by an injured third party against a commercial vendor for on-premises consumption that sells or furnishes alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated person. The duty is one of reasonable or ordinary care, grounded in foreseeability of harm to others from impaired driving. Liability is not strict, and the court rejected the old rule that voluntary consumption always defeats duty as a matter of law. (Derived from Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc. (n.d.).)