Stafford v. Roadway
93 A.3d 1058
Conn.2014Background
- On August 25, 2007, 20‑year‑old Joel Stafford consumed alcohol (including purchasing beer with a friend) and marijuana, became intoxicated, and later fell into a bonfire, suffering serious burns and a BAC of 0.202.
- Stafford sued multiple defendants; this appeal concerns only Albert Roadway, alleging negligent and reckless service of alcohol to a minor and allowing him to attend the bonfire intoxicated.
- Roadway pleaded contributory negligence as an affirmative defense and introduced evidence of Stafford’s history of drug and alcohol use.
- The trial court instructed the jury on contributory negligence; the jury found Roadway negligent and Stafford more than 50% at fault, returning a defense verdict.
- Stafford moved to set aside the verdict arguing contributory negligence is not a defense to negligent service of alcohol to minors; the trial court denied the motion and Stafford appealed to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether contributory negligence is available as a defense in negligent service-of-alcohol claims involving minors | Stafford: Ely v. Murphy means minors are incompetent as a matter of law and cannot be held contributorily negligent for alcohol consumption | Roadway: Ely does not create strict liability; jury may consider a minor’s age/experience and allocate fault accordingly | Held: Contributory negligence is available; jury may assess minor’s negligence under age/experience standard |
| Whether allowing contributory negligence undermines Ely’s protection of minors | Stafford: Ely intended to prevent minors’ consumption from insulating servers as a matter of law | Roadway: Ely only prevents consumption from automatically breaking proximate causation; it does not bar consideration of the minor’s conduct | Held: Ely prohibits automatic bar to causation but does not foreclose considering minor’s comparative fault |
| Whether legislative intent indicates contributory negligence should be barred in these claims | Stafford: (implicit) legislative protections for minors show special treatment | Roadway: Legislature knows how to limit defenses; it did not bar contributory negligence for negligent service claims | Held: No legislative exclusion; absent clear statutory language, common-law defenses remain available |
| Whether historical and comparative authority support permitting contributory negligence for minors | Stafford: (argues for special protection) | Roadway: Long line of Connecticut and sister‑state cases allow assessing children’s negligence by age/experience | Held: Historical Connecticut precedent and other jurisdictions support applying contributory negligence to minors under an age‑adjusted standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Ely v. Murphy, 207 Conn. 88 (recognizing cause of action for negligent service of alcohol to minors; consumption by minors does not automatically break proximate causation)
- Rutkowski v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 100 Conn. 49 (child plaintiff’s conduct may be considered contributory negligence measured by age, judgment, experience)
- Whitman Hotel Corp. v. Elliott & Watrous Engineering Co., 137 Conn. 562 (example of Connecticut adopting strict liability only when explicitly so stated)
- Marfyak v. New England Transportation Co., 120 Conn. 46 (articulating standard for measuring children’s care by age, judgment, experience)
- Greene v. DiFazio, 148 Conn. 419 (confirming contributory negligence for a nine‑year‑old measured by child standard)
- Clennon v. Hometown Buffet, Inc., 84 Conn. App. 182 (appellate court recognizing child’s conduct measured by the same age‑adjusted standard)