440 P.3d 576
Kan.2019Background
- Plaintiff Jeffrey D. Kudlacik was severely injured in a motor-vehicle collision caused by Michael Smith, whose BAC was 0.179.
- Prior to the crash, Smith drank at two commercial bars: Johnny’s Shawnee and Barley’s; plaintiff alleged bartenders kept serving Smith when he was visibly intoxicated.
- Kudlacik sued the two bars for negligence (duty to stop serving) and for aiding and abetting Smith’s tortious conduct.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under K.S.A. 2018 Supp. 60-212(b)(6); the district court dismissed citing prior Kansas precedent barring third-party dram-shop claims, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.
- The Kansas Supreme Court granted review to consider whether to overrule Ling v. Jan’s Liquors and related precedent and whether plaintiff pleaded aiding-and-abetting liability under Restatement (Second) of Torts § 876.
- The Supreme Court reaffirmed Kansas common-law rule denying civil liability for commercial alcohol vendors to third parties, and held plaintiff failed to state a § 876 aiding-and-abetting claim; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Kansas should abandon the common-law rule barring third-party dram-shop suits | Ling is outdated; imposing vendor liability would reduce drunk-driving harms and align Kansas with modern tort principles | Ling and its progeny control; dram-shop liability is a legislative policy decision and Kansas has long declined to adopt it | Court declined to overrule Ling; stare decisis and legislative primacy upheld; no negligence claim against vendors |
| Whether criminal statutes on selling to intoxicated persons create a negligence per se duty to third parties | Statutes criminalizing sales to intoxicated persons should create a private duty and support liability | Statutes were not intended to create private causes of action; Legislature’s long acquiescence indicates it did not intend dram-shop civil liability | Court held statutes do not establish a private duty to third parties here; negligence per se not shown |
| Whether defendants can be liable under Restatement (Second) Torts § 876 (aiding/abetting) | Bartenders substantially assisted or encouraged Smith’s tortious driving by continuing to serve him | Defendants lacked the kind of affirmative conduct or substantial assistance required by § 876 | Court held plaintiff’s allegations do not show knowledge of breach or substantial assistance akin to cases recognizing joint concerted action; § 876 claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Ling v. Jan’s Liquors, 237 Kan. 629 (1985) (established that, absent a dram‑shop statute, Kansas does not permit third‑party civil actions against alcohol vendors)
- Bland v. Scott, 279 Kan. 962 (2005) (reaffirmed Ling and held imposition of vendor liability is a legislative, public‑policy decision)
- Yount v. Deibert, 282 Kan. 619 (2006) (explains limited application of Restatement § 876 where joint and several liability for concerted torts is appropriate)
- Steele v. Latimer, 214 Kan. 329 (1974) (discusses court’s power to adapt common law when prior rules are unsuited to current conditions)
- Hale v. Brown, 287 Kan. 320 (2008) (explains proximate cause principles and when proximate cause is a question of law versus fact)