340 P.3d 655
Or. Ct. App.2015Background
- Casey Deckard was severely injured in a head-on collision caused by Diana Bunch, who had been heavily intoxicated after drinking at Roland King’s house; Bunch’s BAC was 0.22 and she was unable to perform sobriety tests.
- Deckard sued Bunch (common-law negligence) and King (common-law negligence and statutory liability under ORS 471.565 for serving a visibly intoxicated person).
- The trial court dismissed the statutory claim against King (ORCP 21 A(8)), treating ORS 471.565 as a limitation on common-law claims rather than an independent statutory cause of action; the negligence claims proceeded and the jury found Bunch liable but not King.
- Deckard appealed the dismissal, arguing ORS 471.565 creates statutory liability allowing third-party injured plaintiffs to sue social hosts who served visibly intoxicated persons; King argued the statute only limits common-law liability and that any error was harmless because the jury received similar instructions.
- The court reviewed legislative history, prior Oregon Supreme Court decisions, and statutory text to determine whether the legislature intended to create a statutory basis for recovery against hosts who serve visibly intoxicated persons.
- The appellate court concluded the legislature intended ORS 471.565 to create statutory liability for third parties injured by intoxicated drivers served while visibly intoxicated and reversed and remanded, holding the trial court erred in dismissing the statutory claim and that the error was not harmless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ORS 471.565 creates an independent statutory cause of action for third parties injured by intoxicated drivers served while visibly intoxicated | ORS 471.565 creates statutory liability; Deckard falls within protected class | The statute is only a limitation on common-law claims and does not create a new statutory cause of action | The court held ORS 471.565 creates statutory liability for third-party injured in drunk-driving accidents |
| Whether legislative history shows intent to eliminate statutory liability or only to bar claims by plaintiffs who contributed to their intoxication | Legislature intended to preserve third-party recovery and only to exclude non-innocent plaintiffs | The 2001 revisions eliminated statutory liability and merely limited common-law claims | Court held legislative history supports creation/preservation of statutory liability for innocent third parties and the 2001 changes targeted plaintiffs who substantially contributed to intoxication |
| Whether prior case law (Chartrand, Gattman, Grady) supports statutory liability | Past decisions (Chartrand, Grady) recognize statutory liability for hosts | Gattman narrows scope; defendant argues Chartrand dictum was unset by later cases | Court read the case law as consistent: Chartrand and Grady support statutory liability for drunk-driving harms; Gattman limits statute’s scope to vehicle/traffic-related injuries, not to negate statutory liability |
| Whether dismissal was harmless because jury received an instruction similar to the statutory standard | Dismissal was prejudicial because statutory claim was not before jury and instructions did not give a distinct statutory route to recovery | Defendant argued jury was instructed on proof similar to statute and still found no liability | Court held error was not harmless: jury instructions did not present a distinct statutory claim and still required common-law foreseeability elements |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Carpenter, 279 Or 237 (recognition of common-law negligence for serving visibly intoxicated patrons)
- Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, 298 Or 689 (legislature intended to create statutory liability for hosts serving visibly intoxicated persons in drunk-driving contexts)
- Gattman v. Favro, 306 Or 11 (statute intended to protect third parties injured in drunk-driving accidents; not all harms such as assaults)
- Grady v. Cedar Side Inn, Inc., 330 Or 42 (statute subjects hosts to liability to third parties injured by intoxicated patrons; does not limit to ‘innocent’ third parties pre-2001)
- Doyle v. City of Medford, 356 Or 336 (statutory-liability analysis; cited Chartrand as recognizing legislative intent to create statutory liability)
- Scovill v. City of Astoria, 324 Or 159 (framework for determining whether a statute creates liability)