Vesely v. Sager

Supreme Court of California · Torts

TortsNegligenceProximate CauseNegligence Per SeAlcohol Vendor LiabilitySummary Judgmentsection 25602Evidence Code 669

Facts

According to the complaint, Sager owned and operated the Buckhorn Lodge and sold alcoholic beverages to the public. Beginning around 10 p.m., Sager served or permitted O'Connell to be served large quantities of alcohol, knew O'Connell was becoming excessively intoxicated, knew he lacked normal volitional control over further drinking, and knew he would have to drive down a steep, winding mountain road to leave the lodge. Sager allegedly continued serving him until 5:15 a.m., past normal closing time. After leaving, O'Connell drove into the opposite lane and collided with plaintiff's car, causing personal injury and property damage.

Issue

Whether a commercial vendor of alcoholic beverages may be civilly liable to a third person injured by an intoxicated customer when the vendor furnished alcohol to the customer in violation of Business and Professions Code section 25602. Also, whether the trial court properly granted Sager's speaking motion to strike portions of the complaint.

Rule

Civil liability may be imposed on a vendor who furnishes alcoholic beverages to a customer in violation of Business and Professions Code section 25602 when the conditions of Evidence Code section 669(a) are established: violation of the statute, proximate causation, injury of the type the statute was designed to prevent, and injury to a person within the class the statute was designed to protect. Furnishing alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person may be a proximate cause of injuries inflicted by that person on a third party because the consumption, resulting intoxication, and injury-producing conduct are foreseeable intervening causes. A nonstatutory speaking motion to strike or dismiss must be treated as a motion for summary judgment.

🔒

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 Sacramento, Nora Kim was served several cocktails at Golden Terrace Tavern, a business open to the public. The bartender could see that Nora was slurring her words, stumbling, and dropping her keys, but continued serving her; an hour later Nora drove away and struck Devin Ruiz's parked car, injuring Devin as he unloaded groceries.

If Devin sues Golden Terrace Tavern, which is the strongest basis for allowing his claim to proceed?

Explanation. The majority rejected the old rule that consumption is automatically the sole proximate cause. A commercial vendor who furnishes alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person in violation of the statute may face civil liability to an injured third person if the Evidence Code section 669(a) conditions are established: statutory violation, proximate cause, injury of the type the statute was designed to prevent, and injury to a person within the protected class.