Valicenti v. Valicenti, 59 N.Y.2d 78 (1983)

The Dram Shop Act permits recovery for loss of support due to the death of an intoxicated person, but does not extend to damages for loss of consortium, whether economic or noneconomic.

Summary

This case concerns the scope of damages recoverable under New York’s Dram Shop Act (General Obligations Law § 11-101). Plaintiff sought damages for the death of his wife, who died in an accident after being allegedly served alcohol to intoxication at the defendant’s bar. The Court of Appeals held that while the Dram Shop Act allows recovery for loss of support, it does not permit recovery for loss of consortium. The Court reasoned that loss of consortium is a common-law concept, and the Dram Shop Act does not explicitly provide for such damages.

Facts

Judy Valicenti died in a car accident after leaving the defendant’s bar. The plaintiff, her husband, filed suit on behalf of himself and their children, alleging that the bar negligently served Mrs. Valicenti alcohol while she was visibly intoxicated, leading to her death. The complaint sought damages under both a negligence theory and the Dram Shop Act, claiming loss of support, maintenance, care, nurture, love, guidance, training, and education. Evidence presented indicated the couple was separated before her death, with the husband partly supporting her.

Procedural History

The Special Term denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing the negligence cause of action and dismissing the claim for noneconomic loss of consortium under the Dram Shop Act. The Court of Appeals reviewed the decision regarding the economic loss of consortium.

Issue(s)

Whether the phrase “or otherwise” in the Dram Shop Act includes damages resulting from loss of consortium, either economic or noneconomic.

Holding

No, because the Dram Shop Act does not provide a basis for recovery for loss of consortium, as such damages are not permitted under common law and the Legislature has not explicitly included them in the statute.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals acknowledged the legislative history of the Dram Shop Act, noting its original purpose of suppressing intemperance and the subsequent shift toward compensation for injury caused by the illegal sale of alcohol. The court emphasized that while the statute creates a new cause of action, it does not alter existing rules concerning recovery and damages. The Court referenced Reid v. Terwilliger, 116 N.Y. 530, 533-534, stating that the Legislature left recovery “subject to the existing rules of damages, and to the facts established upon the trial.” The Court found that the husband and children were entitled to have a jury weigh evidence relating to their loss of support, considering both the support provided before the death and the support they could have reasonably expected but for the death. However, the court drew a line at loss of consortium, citing De Angelis v. Lutheran Med. Center, 58 NY2d 1053 and Liff v. Schildkrout, 49 NY2d 622, 634 to support the principle that loss of consortium is not allowed under common law and any change to that rule is the province of the Legislature, not the courts. The court stated, “[i]f a change should be made, it is for the Legislature, and not the courts, to make.” Therefore, the court concluded that the Appellate Division erred by not dismissing the claim for economic loss of consortium damages under the Dram Shop Act.