Przekurat v. Torres
428 P.3d 512
Colo.2018Background
- In June 2011 defendants hosted a large, social-party at a rented house where alcohol was provided and numerous guests (some uninvited) attended.
- Hank Sieck, an unacquainted guest who was under 21, drank at the party; there is no evidence any host knew Sieck or his age.
- Sieck later drove at high speed, crashed, and Jared Przekurat suffered catastrophic injuries; Przekurat sued the hosts under Colorado’s Dram Shop Act (§ 12-47-801(4)(a)(I)).
- The hosts moved for summary judgment asserting no evidence of actual knowledge that Sieck was underage; Przekurat argued constructive knowledge (should have known) sufficed.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the hosts; the court of appeals affirmed; Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the statute requires actual knowledge of a specific guest’s age.
- The Supreme Court held the statute’s plain language requires actual knowledge that the specific guest is under 21 for social-host liability and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether “knowingly” in § 12-47-801(4)(a)(I) requires actual knowledge of the underage person’s age or allows constructive knowledge | Przekurat: “Knowingly” only applies to providing the place; constructive knowledge (should have known) of a guest’s age suffices | Hosts: “Knowingly” applies to all elements, including actual knowledge of the guest’s age; constructive knowledge insufficient | Court: “Knowingly” applies to the age element and requires actual knowledge of the specific guest’s underage status |
Key Cases Cited
- Build It and They Will Drink, Inc. v. Strauch, 253 P.3d 302 (Colo. 2011) (interpreting "willfully and knowingly" under the Dram Shop Act to require actual knowledge)
- Dickman v. Jackalope, Inc., 870 P.2d 1261 (Colo. App. 1994) ("willfully and knowingly" applies to licensee’s knowledge of patron’s age)
- Clyncke v. Waneka, 157 P.3d 1072 (Colo. 2007) (statutory interpretation principles; plain and ordinary meaning)
- State ex rel. Suthers v. Mandatory Poster Agency, Inc., 260 P.3d 9 (Colo. App. 2009) (interpreting “knowingly” to require actual knowledge where statute omits "should have known")
- People v. Coleby, 34 P.3d 422 (Colo. 2001) (criminal statute holding that an actual-knowledge mens rea applies to all elements)