Warr v. JMGM Group, LLC
433 Md. 170
| Md. | 2013Background
- On Aug. 21, 2008 Michael Eaton was served numerous alcoholic drinks at Dogfish Head Alehouse, became visibly intoxicated, was allegedly served after being cut off, left, and shortly thereafter caused a collision that killed the Warrs’ daughter and injured other family members.
- William and Angela Warr sued JMGM Group, LLC (Dogfish Head) alleging negligence/dram‑shop liability for furnishing alcohol to an intoxicated or habitual drunkard and seeking recovery for death and injuries.
- The circuit court denied defendant’s motion to dismiss but later granted summary judgment, concluding Maryland precedent foreclosed dram‑shop liability and that judicially creating it was for the Court of Appeals or the Legislature.
- The Court of Appeals granted certiorari to decide whether to recognize dram‑shop liability or otherwise impose a duty on commercial servers to the public.
- The majority held no duty existed from the tavern to the injured members of the general public absent a special relationship or statutory language creating liability; thus dram‑shop liability was not imposed.
- A dissent would have recognized a common‑law duty (dram‑shop liability) not to serve a person visibly under the influence, reasoning active risk creation, foreseeability, public policy, and changed societal conditions justify the rule change.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Maryland should recognize dram‑shop liability / a duty on taverns to third‑party victims | Warrs: tavern owes duty to refuse service to visibly intoxicated patrons; serving after visible intoxication was an affirmative act that created foreseeable risk and proximate cause of injuries | Dogfish Head: precedent (Hatfield, Felder) bars such liability; absent a special relationship courts should not impose a duty; proximate cause breaks at patron’s voluntary acts; legislature, not court, should act | Held: No duty to general public; dram‑shop liability not recognized absent legislative action or a special relationship (majority) |
| Whether statutory criminal prohibition on serving intoxicated persons creates civil duty | Warrs: criminal statute and regulatory scheme imply a protective class and support civil duty | Dogfish Head: criminal prohibition does not create a civil cause of action; statute protects public generally, not a specific class | Held: Criminal statute insufficient to create tort duty to the general public |
| Whether defendant’s over‑serving can be proximate cause of third‑party harm | Warrs: continued service after visible intoxication can be a substantial factor and not superseded by patron’s intervening act | Dogfish Head: patron’s independent decision to drive breaks causal chain; foreseeability alone insufficient | Held: Majority: summary judgment appropriate — no duty so proximate causation question not reached; Dissent: disputed — proximate cause could be for jury to decide |
| Proper role of court vs legislature in adopting dram‑shop rule | Warrs: courts may evolve common law in light of changed conditions; many jurisdictions have done so | Dogfish Head: public‑policy implications and regulatory scheme counsel legislative action | Held: Majority: policy decision for General Assembly; courts bound by stare decisis absent legislative change |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hatfield, 197 Md. 249 (1951) (refused to recognize civil liability for seller of intoxicating liquor as proximate cause of third‑party injury)
- Felder v. Butler, 292 Md. 174 (1981) (declined to adopt dram‑shop liability; left room for legislative action or future reconsideration)
- Barclay v. Briscoe, 427 Md. 270 (2012) (reaffirmed no duty to control third parties absent a special relationship)
- Ashburn v. Anne Arundel County, 306 Md. 617 (1986) (adopted general rule that no duty to control third persons absent special relationship)
- Remsburg v. Montgomery, 376 Md. 568 (2003) (applied special‑relationship rule to decline imposing duty for third‑party conduct)
- Muthukumarana v. Montgomery County, 370 Md. 447 (2002) (no duty by 911/dispatchers to public absent special relationship)
- Gourdine v. Crews, 405 Md. 722 (2008) (refused to impose duty to an indeterminate class where connection between actor and injured third party was too attenuated)
- Kuykendall v. Top Notch Laminates, Inc., 70 Md. App. 244 (1987) (C.O.S.A.) (refused to impose liability on social or commercial provider absent special relationship)
- Ontiveros v. Borak, 136 Ariz. 500 (1983) (adopted dram‑shop liability under common law; relied on Restatement principles)
- El Chico Corp. v. Poole, 732 S.W.2d 306 (Tex. 1987) (Tex. Supreme Court adopted dram‑shop liability recognizing duty when server’s conduct creates foreseeable risk)