Sherman v. Robinson, 80 N.Y.2d 483 (1992)
A convenience store is not liable under New York’s Dram Shop Law or common-law negligence for injuries caused by an intoxicated minor when the store’s unlawful sale of alcohol was to a different minor who then shared the alcohol with the intoxicated minor.
Summary
This case addresses the scope of liability for businesses that sell alcohol to minors when the alcohol is then shared with other minors, one of whom causes injury due to intoxication. The New York Court of Appeals held that a convenience store was not liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated minor when the store’s unlawful alcohol sale was to a different minor who subsequently shared the alcohol. The court reasoned that the Dram Shop Act and related statutes create a narrow exception to the common-law rule of individual responsibility for alcohol consumption, and this exception does not extend to indirect sales where the alcohol is furnished to someone other than the intoxicated person.
Facts
A minor, Relf, used a found driver’s license to purchase beer and wine coolers from a convenience store operated by AOK. Relf used money pooled from a group of teenagers, including Robinson and Sherman, who waited outside in a car. The group consumed the alcohol, and later, Robinson, while intoxicated, drove a car in which Sherman was a passenger. The car was involved in an accident, severely injuring Sherman.
Procedural History
Sherman sued Robinson and AOK, the convenience store. The motion court dismissed the complaint against AOK on summary judgment. The Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal. Sherman appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a convenience store that unlawfully sells alcohol to a minor is liable, under General Obligations Law §§ 11-100 and 11-101 or common-law negligence, for injuries caused by a different intoxicated minor who consumed the alcohol after it was shared with them.
Holding
No, because the Dram Shop Act and related statutes create a narrow exception to the common-law rule of individual responsibility, and this exception does not extend to indirect sales where the alcohol is furnished to someone other than the intoxicated person.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the claim against AOK, reasoning that General Obligations Law §§ 11-100 and 11-101, which provide a cause of action for injuries caused by an intoxicated person against someone who unlawfully sells alcohol to them, must be narrowly construed. The court emphasized that the statutes explicitly limit liability to situations where the unlawful sale is made to the intoxicated person who causes the injury. The court distinguished cases seeking administrative sanctions under the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 65 for on-premises activity, noting that those cases involved open and observable conduct. The court stated that “the General Obligations Law – unlike the regulatory provision – is explicit in limiting liability for injuries caused by an intoxicated minor to the unlawful supply of alcoholic beverages to that person.”
The court rejected the argument that the sale to Relf was effectively a sale to Robinson, stating that no duty was imposed on the defendant to investigate potential consumers in the parking lot. Referencing D’Amico v. Christie, 71 N.Y.2d 76 (1987), the court reiterated that ” ‘[t]n order for plaintiffs to prevail on [a] claim of common-law negligence, there must first be a legal duty owed by defendant to them. Foreseeability of harm is alone not enough.’ ” The court also relied on the principle that “ ‘the very existence of a Dram Shop Act constitutes a substantial argument against expansion of the legislatively-mandated liability.’ ” The court declined to expand the common law to impose liability for indirect sales, given the Legislature’s choice not to provide for it in the statute.