Johnson and some other minors were served alcohol at the
Velvet Dove Restaurant, despite the fact that the managers knew Johnson
was going to drive.
Johnson got into a car accident, injuring Brigance, who
sued Velvet Dove for negligence.
The Trial Court dismissed the case. Brigance appealed.
The Trial Court felt that the defendants owed no duty
of care.
The Appellate Court reversed.
Until this time, common law held that a tavern owner that
gives alcohol to another is not civilly liable for a third person's
injuries caused by acts of the intoxicated patron.
However, a new trend was emerging, holding that risks to
members of the public are reasonably foreseeable, therefore
providing drinks could pose an unreasonable risk of harm to the public.
In this case, the Appellate Court changed the common law
to assign liability to tavern owners for the acts of intoxicated patrons.
Tavern owners have a duty to exercise reasonable care
not to sell liquor to noticeably intoxicated patrons.
Restatement of Torts says that a special duty to
care is created when there is a special relationship between
two people, and one could argue that the restauranteur-patron relationship
is a special relationship. But that duty to care is
generally thought of as a duty to care for the patron, not a duty to care
for people the patron might injure.
