*1 case were in this University’s actions in this court was certiorari
quasi-judicial, of review. only available method Maye’s retaliation claims Review pro- him University denying on the based certiorari. For also limited to motions is not tied to the Uni- any retaliation claims decisions, Maye chose versity’s promotion action remedy pursuing MHRA, bring- he is from barred action separate breach of contract ing a Minn. exclusivity provision. MHRA’s (1998). Stat. 363.11 DECISION pro- University’s decisions quasi-judicial decisions Maye mote were process- administrative through arrived at contract claims Maye’s es. breach of impossible would to examine without deci- management the internal reviewing Therefore, University. a writ sions of the only of certiorari was the avenue available Maye to review of the Universi- seek ty’s actions.
Affirmed. L. as Trustee for the Terri CARLSON of Kin Ronald J. Heirs and Next Carlson, Carlson, and Terri J. individ ually parent and as and natural Tyler
guardian Carlson, L. for Alexis Hardman, T. J. Carlson Joshua minors, Respondent, THOMPSON, et
Eric B. al., Defendants, City Byron Firefighters Relief
Association, Appellant.
No. CX-00-222. Appeals of Minnesota.
Aug. Review Denied Oct. 2000.* * BLATZ,C.J., part case. consideration or decision of this took
388 Sheran, Tschida,
John M. P. Daniel Leonard, Deinard, P.A., Street and Minne- apolis, respondents. Magnuson, Solheim,
Eric J. Mark A. Kluz, Jr., Rider, Bennett, Steven Egan & Arundel, LLP, Minneapolis, appellant.
Considered and decided AMUNDSON, Presiding Judge, CRIPPEN, Judge, ANDERSON, and Judge.
OPINION
CRIPPEN, Judge. Appellant Relief Firefighters Associa- challenges summary tion the trial court’s judgment it damages is liable in a civil suit charged act when it defendant Eric fee, Thompson an admission sold tick- him, ets to and provided later him alcoholic beverages when he was obviously intoxi- cated, resulting damages suffered the respondents Terri Carlson and other heirs her deceased af- husband. We firm.
FACTS parties have to the facts. July appellant
In held a Firefighters dance, Relief Association an event which obtained a license sell to non-intoxicating liquor public. to the At p.m., around 9:00 arrived at the dance, fee, paid a entrance $5 entered enclosed area where beer was sold a and band was playing, Thompson pur- chased 5 10 beer tickets.
Thompson, who not obviously intoxi- time, cated at this used or one two procure beer tickets to a beer. He then obtained more drinks gave any- but never body his remaining tickets. The Associa- beer, tion continued to without collecting money further or beer tickets, until he had consumed several beers. obviously became intox- point, icated at some and the Association continued to serve him beer. claims, act includ- damages of civil at around ments left the dance and the occurrence of a ing illegal and sub- away his car
11:45. He drove relate(s) “substantially her hus- sale violation respondent struck sequently sought to be achieved band, purposes and in- to the killing respondent’s husband *3 act”). damages the civil parties stipulated juring respondent. was at the served Thompson
that the beer Thompson paid charges admission Thompson’s in intoxication party resulted in and beer tickets and was that bought directly caused and that the accident anticipated who paying sense a customer Respondent intoxication. by Thompson’s of for his This serving payment. the beer the sued ordinary in place transaction took the (1998). Act, § After 340A.801 Minn.Stat. business, of a commercial vendor’s course summary judgment, on for cross-motions in its the enlarging prospect profits facts, granted trial court stipulated the properly The trial serving of drinks. court respondent. judgment to of beers the transaction a sale adjudged that were served. ISSUE affirming mindful in the We are judgment a entitled to respondent Was trial that we should avoid judgment court’s civil-damages-act on its claim? of a determination whether hypertechnical intended. a was consummated or See sale ANALYSIS 593, Coleman, Cady 315 N.W.2d 595-96 v. genuine are is When there (Minn.1982). approach, among Such fact, an court appellate sues material of designed to things, permits practices other in lower erred court[] asks “whether the ac of the act. We application frustrate by of the law.” Coo application State [its] of the purpose count the fundamental (Minn.1990) French, 2, 4 per v. 460 N.W.2d in to liability respect people act uphold to omitted). (citation applica the Similarly, business, a making profit in a engaged of undisputed tion of statute the facts a to of Koehnen v. liquor. the See provision law, and the question a involves a of case (Minn.1999); 112 Dufuor, 590 N.W.2d binding on trial is not this court’s decision Al Cady, N.W.2d at 596. see also 315 Bank, Liberty court. Boubelik v. State be construed the Act is to though (Minn.1996). 393, 402 553 N.W.2d scope,” it is “beyond its definite to suppress the of construed to ends liberally damages provides The civil act that illegal furnishing liquor of that ing the loss as a person pecuniary a who incurs a provid intoxication and person’s causes a party of another result of the intoxication in for those who are ing compensation against person has a of action a who right v. this jured a result of conduct. as Lefto by person intoxication of that caused the Inc. 581 N.W.2d Hoggsbreath Enterprises, beverages.” selling alcoholic “illegally omitted). (citation (Minn.1998) 855, 857 (1998). 340A.801, 1 subd. Minn.Stat. suggesting Respondent’s argument, a sale of alcohol is The occurrence of of amendments damages legislature’s the various of a civil act important element of responsibility clear in this the Act show the only the element at issue claim and vendors, Swisher, beyond the takes us licensed Rambaum 435 case. See (Minn.1989) case.1 This the transaction this (stating study 21 ele- N.W.2d (one of the reasons Cady, N.W.2d at 595 Supreme has 315 inter- The Minnesota preted meaning subject the amendments elimi- to the are commercial vendors beverages "gift” as a nating the of alcoholic "they profit by their sales under the act is that covered, regarding persons the declaration the bear some of risks therefore should result, is holding, a social host never as a business;" argument is this created their liable, a has been sale. civilly even when there hosts). inapplicable to social Koehnen, at 112. See also See 590 N.W.2d argument suggests passed that the Act Thompson extends to between and the Fire gratuitous Fighters purely furnishing liquor by Critically, a Relief Association. af- tickets, ter one dealing using vendor. Because we are not or two with followed, lay facts out what gratuity, such a case of we pure needn’t question.2 reach this It is unclear in this gave or remainder purchased case whether the tickets friend, tickets to a point from that forward, (sic) were delivered to the vendor Fighter’s the Fire contin- anyone appellant’s or else. But ued to they but conduct is sufficient demonstrate a did any not collect additional tickets. At Act, purposes with consider- no time did Thompson expect or receive *4 drinks, the a refund for delivery ation furnished for of the unused he tickets had purchased. imposed charges By p.m., Thompson where 10:30 on intoxicated, obviously had Thompson drinking and then become how- served ever, him, the Fire Fighters drinks and this conduct in continued to occurred beer, indicated, as ordinary appellant’s the of with- course business out an exchange as a of tickets. The beer commercial vendor.
served to
p.m.
between 10:30
p.m.
and 11:45
further contributed to his
DECISION
intoxication.
The trial
properly granted
court
Thompson’s
to give away
decision
his
summary judgment
to respondent. The
tickets
upon
is the critical fact
which liabil-
civil damages
apply
act will
where there is
ity pivots. The
of exchange
medium
in
adequate
evidence
of
consideration
ease,
tickets,
this
beer
is
longer
no
in his
charged
serving
for the
of an alcoholic
possession
following
givé
decision to
by
beverage
a commercial vendor to an
those tickets away. This is
mildly
not a
obviously
person.
intoxicated
fact
interesting
or something of historical
Affirmed.
interest;
it is critical to
liabili-
establishing
ty
Damages
under the Civil
right
Act. A
of
(dis-
ANDERSON, Judge
BARRY
G.
action
against
person
exists
the
causing
senting).
of
person only
“illegal-
intoxication
respectfully
I
I
dissent because
do not
ly selling alcoholic beverages.” Minn.Stat.
believe that there is evidence in the record
(1998)
added).
(emphasis
348.801
As the
establishing that a sale of alcoholic bever-
supreme court
in
recognized
Koehnen v.
ages
place
took'
at a time when Eric Dufuor,
(Minn.1999),
medium of exchange of tickets the sale of alcohol simply was used for beer peri- Thompson over an extended given to obviously intoxi- while he was od time is no illegal cated. There thus liability can beverage and alcoholic appellant. legislature If the imposed on vendors in- had intended that commercial provision or illegal gift for the cur so. It did it could have done of alcohol not. circumstances, while the these
Under unsatisfactory equitable from result is I is ines- viewpoint, believe conclusion *5 capable that Act attaches required. reversal is Minnesota, Respondent, STATE Quarry JACKSON, Appellant. Robert
No. C0-99-1534. of Minnesota. Appeals
Aug. 2000. Oct. Review Denied