Flores v. Exprezit! Stores 98-Georgia, LLC
289 Ga. 466
Ga.2011Background
- Six people were killed and several injured in a motor-vehicle collision involving a noticeably intoxicated driver who had purchased beer at a convenience store about four hours earlier.
- The driver, Grundell, drove to Exprezit! Stores 98-Georgia, LLC, and purchased a 12-pack of beer while intoxicated.
- The beer was consumed before the collision, and the driver's blood alcohol concentration was 0.181 at the time of the crash.
- Injured parties brought claims under Georgia's dram shop act, OCGA § 51-1-40, against the convenience store.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Exprezit!, and the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the dram shop act does not apply to sales of closed or packaged alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated adult.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to determine whether the dram shop act applies to the sale of closed or packaged alcohol by convenience stores to intoxicated adults who will soon drive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does OCGA § 51-1-40 apply to the sale of closed or packaged alcohol by a convenience store to a noticeably intoxicated adult? | Flores argues the act covers any sale of alcohol, regardless of whether it is on- or off-premises. | Exprezit! contends the act only applies to on-premises servings and should not apply to packaged alcohol from stores. | Yes; the act applies to packaged alcohol sales by convenience stores. |
| Is a convenient-store sale of packaged alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated adult who will soon drive foreseeable and potentially proximate to harm, creating liability under OCGA § 51-1-40? | Sale to a noticeable drunk who will soon drive makes the seller liable if proximate cause is shown. | The foreseeability and proximate-cause connection are insufficient or speculative in packaged-off premises sales. | Yes; such sales can support proximate-cause liability if shown. |
| Should precedent from Delta Airlines v. Townsend affect application of the dram shop act to convenience stores' packaged-alcohol sales? | Delta demonstrates foreseeability when providing alcohol to intoxicated individuals who will drive, even in non-traditional contexts. | Differences between airline passengers and grocery/convenience-store customers limit applicability. | Delta is distinguishable but supports liability where the seller knows the customer will soon drive. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riley v. H & H Operations, 263 Ga. 652 (Ga. 1993) (dram shop applies to sale to intoxicated persons; focus is on sobriety, not timing)
- Delta Airlines v. Townsend, 279 Ga. 511 (Ga. 2005) (foreseeability; airline context; distinguishing factors for applicability)
- Taylor v. RaceTrac Petroleum, 238 Ga. App. 761 (Ga. App. 1999) (convenience-store liability under OCGA § 51-1-40 discussed)
- Perryman v. Lufran Inc., 209 Ga. App. 654 (Ga. App. 1993) (convenience store liability governed by OCGA § 51-1-40)
- Studebaker's of Savannah v. Tibbs, 195 Ga. App. 142 (Ga. App. 1990) (case cited regarding whether intoxication observed is a factual question for jury)
- Mullins v. First General Ins. Co., 253 Ga. 486 (Ga. 1984) (statutory interpretation principle; plain meaning governs)
- Flores v. Exprezit! Stores 98-Georgia, LLC, 304 Ga. App. 333 (Ga. App. 2010) (Court of Appeals held against applicability to packaged alcohol)