Sissle v. Stefenoni

Opinion

CHRISTIAN, J.

This appeal presents the question whether the survivors of a person who died in an automobile accident, caused by decedent’s own drunken driving and his consequent violation of a traffic law, can take an award of damages from the proprietor of a bar where the decedent was served drinks, while he was obviously intoxicated, just before the accident.

Patricia June Sissle and others appeal from a judgment dismissing their action against Henry Stefenoni, the proprietor of a bar known as “Joe’s Place.” Appellants sought damages on allegations that respondents or their agents sold alcoholic beverages to decedent Clarence Edwards, though he was obviously intoxicated and it was known that the decedent would, upon leaving the premises, drive an automobile on a public highway. The court sustained a general demurrer to the complaint and rendered judgment of dismissal. The present appeal followed.

A commercial vendor of alcoholic beverages may be held liable for injuries proximately caused by the sale of liquor to an obviously intoxicated customer.

(Ewing

v.

Cloverleaf Bowl

(1978) 20 Cal.3d 389 [143 Cal.Rptr. 13, 572 P.2d 1155];

Vesely

v.

Sager

(1971) 5 Cal.3d 153 [95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151].)

1

The bartender’s duty of care is owed both to third parties who foreseeably may be injured by the intoxicated patron and to the obviously intoxicated customer himself. Damages may not be recovered from the vendor, however, where the patron is guilty of willful misconduct.

(Kindt

v.

Kauffman

(1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 845 [129 Cal.Rptr. 603], dis. on other grds. in

Ewing

v.

Cloverleaf Bowl,

20 Cal.3d 389, 401, fn. 8, 404, fn. 10 [143 Cal.Rptr. 13, 572 P.2d 1155].) “ ‘[WJillful misconduct implies the intentional doing of something either with knowledge, express or implied, that serious injury is a probable, as distinguished from a possible, result, or the intentional doing of an act with a wanton and reckless disregard of its consequences.’