Selchert v. Lien

Supreme Court of South Dakota · 1985 · Corporations

371 N.W.2d 791 (1985)

Updated August 22, 2026

Corporationswrongful deathliquor licensee liabilityloss of consortiumnegligence per seSDCL 35-4-78(2)intoxicated patronlicensee liability

Facts

According to the complaint, the licensee's employees sold and served the decedent alcoholic beverages throughout the evening and early morning until he became highly intoxicated. With full knowledge of his intoxication, they continued serving him in violation of SDCL 35-4-78(2). The decedent then drove home, parked in his garage, closed the garage door, remained in the vehicle, and died of carbon-monoxide poisoning. His widow sued for wrongful death on behalf of the estate and also asserted a claim for loss of consortium.

Issue

Whether a decedent's estate may maintain a wrongful death action against an on-sale liquor licensee and its employee for knowingly selling alcohol to the decedent while he was intoxicated when that violation caused his death, and whether the surviving spouse may maintain an independent or derivative loss-of-consortium claim arising from that death.

Rule

Under South Dakota law, violation of a statute is negligence as a matter of law when the statute was intended to protect the class of persons including the plaintiff against the type of harm that occurred. SDCL 35-4-78(2) protects against death or injury resulting from the drunkenness to which the sale contributes, and that protected class includes the intoxicated consumer, so the consumer's estate may pursue wrongful death subject to defenses such as contributory negligence. However, where death gives rise to an action under the wrongful death statute, that statute is the exclusive remedy, and there is no independent or derivative spousal loss-of-consortium action for the wrongful death of a spouse.

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.

In Sioux Falls, Prairie Lantern Club holds an on-sale liquor license. Its bartender, Owen Marks, keeps selling whiskey to Devin Cole after Devin is plainly intoxicated and Owen knows it; Devin later falls down an exterior stairway at home and dies from injuries traceable to his drunkenness.

If Devin's estate brings a wrongful death action against Prairie Lantern Club and Owen, which is the strongest argument for allowing the claim to proceed past dismissal?

Explanation. The majority held that violation of the statute prohibiting knowing sales to an intoxicated person is negligence as a matter of law when the statute protects the plaintiff's class against the type of harm suffered. It specifically concluded that the protected class includes the intoxicated consumer, not just third parties, for death or injury resulting from the drunkenness to which the sale contributed.