*1 Harris approached officers police Once him investigating express purpose
for violations, Har- I believe specific criminal
for I, of Article purposes was seized ris Constitution.11 the Minnesota
Section police officers
The court concedes cause12 search probable
did not have they bag or his before person
either Harris’ the record does the bus and
boarded given the that would have
reveal facts Harris, except target for
officers reason search, they once results their Therefore, plastic bin- bus.
boarded the marijuana have been and the
dles
suppressed.13 KOEHNEN,
Joseph petitioner, L.
Appellant, DUFUOR, al, defendants,
Daniel R. et Paul, Respondent.
Rachel Sarah
No. C7-97-1820.
Supreme Court Minnesota.
March Knodell, Office, Ha- Knodell Law
David R. mel, for appellant. Wohletz, A. Alsop, Gregory Gisla-
David D.
Maleeki, P.L.L.P.,
son, Dosland, Hunter &
Minnetonka,
respondent.
for
investigating
specific
police
purpose
or her for
should not
him
face
demands
silence
however”);
begins
to ask for informa-
interpreted
cooperation,
violations
An-
criminal
White,
tion).
Hacker, Two Nations: Black and
drew
Hostile,
Unequal
(describing
Separate,
young
police and
typical
between the
encounters
(citing Berge
Cripps,
at 391
See
males).
African-American
Safety,
Comm’r
Pub.
(Minn. 1985)) (stating that an officer must have
(citing
Cripps,
State v.
OPINION Bukrinsky and his friends Gil Daniel R. and Dufour, none of whom were known to re- STRINGER, Justice. spondеnt. Anderson six glass- drank at least granted to We review consider whether paying es of beer his charge. after $4 Damage Civil Minn.Stat. (1998), 340A.801, applies 1 to a non- evening, On the same appellant was drink- imposes host a nominal commercial ing party beer at a at his adult sister’s provided guest. charge Appel- for beer to nearby. large residence Noting group Joseph injured by guest lant was Koehnen home, milling respondent’s around outside respondent Ra- who had consumed alcohol at appellant expen- went outside to check on his having party paid chel Paul’s after a $4 pickup parked sive truck in his sister’s drive- charge. Appellant commenced this action way. A ap- confrontation occurred between against claiming respondent, that she violat- Anderson, pellant including and a group ed the Civil Act because she Bukrinsky they departed and Dufour as party charged for beer at a she hosted. The respondent’s granted party. punched ap- respondent’s district court motion Anderson summary judgment fell, and held that pellant in appellant hitting the face and statute, interрreted as this court in pavement his head on the sustaining and Coleman,1 applied only to commercial ven- injuries. severe host, respondent dors and a social Appellant respondent’s parents, sued Duf- liability. was immune The court of parents, Bukrinsky his and appeals his fa grounds.2 affirmed on the same ther, likewise affirm. and Anderson on various theories negligence, respondent and sued a single on dispute. Septem- The facts are not in On statutory claim alleging a violation of the old, years ber respondent, then 17 Civil party hosted a her father’s townhouse
Minnetonka,
Respondent pre-
Minnesota.
except
subd.l. All claims were resolved
those
party by
pared
inviting
of her
some
against
uninsured, judg
Anderson —who was
friends,
close
map
school
drew a
for several ment-proof and in default —and the claim
other friends who didn’t know where she
respondent.3 The district court
lived,
gave
money
acquaintance
adult
granted respondent’s
summary
motion for
purchase
keg
party.
beer for the
judgment holding
the statute
Respondent planned
recoup
expense
only to “commercial
vendors”
alcоhol and
by charging
guests
glass
her
for a
$2
$4
that as a
respondent
“social host”
was im
guests
which her
could use for unlimited
liability.
mune from
appeals
The court of
beer,
practice
parties
refills of
common at
affirmed,4
appeal
and this
followed.
paid a
She
had attended.
friend between
money
help
to collect the
$10
$20
reviewing
grant
summary
When
necessary.
apparent-
control the
judgment,
court
will affirm unless there
ly
no
surprise
that a number of
genuine
ais
issue of material fact or the
arrived at her
uninvited
court below
throughout
evening,
applying
erred
the course of the
law.5 The
includ-
18-year-old
Ray
then
David
parties disagree
Anderson
interpretation
insurer).
1. 315
Respondent's mother's
insurer
re-
resulting garnishment proceeding
moved the
C7-97-1820,
Dufour,
2. Koehnen v.
1998 WL
stipulation
federal
where the
was vacated
1998).
(Minn.App.Apr.21,
and the claim remanded back to state district
Co.,
court. See Koehnen v. Herald Fire Ins.
Respondent
appellant attempted
to settle
(8th Cir.1996).
F.3d
respondent using
claim
Miller
Shugart stipulation
which
set
Koehnen,
WL
188865 at *4.
against respon
tlement was
recoverable
Shugart,
dent's mother’s insurer. Sеe Miller v.
(Minn. 1982)
Goebel,
(validating
Agencies,
5. Art
Inc. v. North Suburban
Inc.,
stipulated
judgment
tort
which
the circumstances
concluded that
We have
respondent,
applied to
Damages Act as
surrounding
adoption
of the Civil
novo.6
review de
law which we
question of
compel
finding
in 1911
Damage
[sic]
law,
cause of
early common
At
to create a
intended
resulting from
injury
existed for
against every violator
cause of action
new
in 1911
beverages but
intoxicating
sale of
*3
or not.
liquor
in the
business
whether
of Minnesota’s
by
adoption
the
created
was
legis-
the
significant that аt that session
Act).7
(the
first ver
The
Damages Act
strength-
preoccupied
lature seemed
giving
Act
entitled “An
of the Act was
sion
laws,
liquor
us-
ening
tightening
injuries
persons, for
right
action to certain
* * *
‘any person’ and
the words
by the
or
by any
person,
intoxicated
caused
anywhere
persons
mention
making no
any per
any person, against
intoxication of
ap-
act
business. Since the
liquor
in the
in certain cases.”8
causing the same
son
transactions,
it is not
plies
unchanged
language
the Act remained
The
legisla-
that
to assume
unreasonable
provided:
1977 and
adoption
from its
until
persons
to include
ture intended
child,
husband, wife,
guard
parent,
Every
* *
vendors
*. While
than the licensed
in
ian,
who is
employer,
person
or other
wedding
applies to those invited
the act
means of
jured
property,
or
or
person
company picnics as well as
receptions and
by
or
by any
person,
intoxicated
support,
gatherings
supervision
to other
right
any person, has
intoxication of
onerous,
occurs to us
may
no reason
name,
action,
against
in his own
others,
liquor
why
furnish
those who
ivho,
barteying
illegally selling,
occasiоns,
not be re-
social
even on
liquors, caused the
giving intoxicating
or
third
sponsible
protecting
innocent
* * *.9
intoxication of such
dangers of in-
potential
from the
persons
“person”
the term
The Act did not define
hospitali-
discriminately furnishing such
v.
provider, but in Ross
as it related to the
ty.12
Damages
determined that
Ross we
ruling that the
affirming
In
the district
applied to an adult brother who
Act
host, the Ross court
to a social
Act
legis
minor brother because
alcohol to a
well be
“[i]t
remarked
prophetically
“the casu
apply
the act to
lature intended
light
рresent
of our
legislature
who,
hospitality
dispensing
a host
al donor
as
Damage [sic]
amend the Civil
holding will
situations, dispenses liquor
or in other social
* *
however,
This,
prerog-
is not our
*.
10
Act
sweep of
illegally.”
noted the broad
13
ative.”
the act
“the conditions under which
the Act:
indeed amend
did
In 1977
a clear intent
adopted
indicate
[in 1911]
“giving” from
deleting the word
byAct
everyone who violates
apply
statute,
“any person
limiting
that a social
argument
laws.”11 The
who,
selling
bartering intoxi-
by illegally
differently than a
host should be treated
*
14
* *
intoxication.”
causes
cating liquors,
statutе was dismissed
vendor under the
City
Spying
years later in Cole
Five
legislative intent:
being contrary to the
117,
Ross,
N.W.2d at 150.
Minn. at
200
Starkey,
294
Dairyland
6. See
Ins. Co.
364, (Minn. 1995)
had become intoxi
363,
younger brother in Ross
The
subsequently killed in a traffic
cated and was
the intoxication.
Groe,
caused
accident
245 Minn.
7. See Beck v.
Steenson,
(1955);
886,
K.
With
Michael
Supreme
Legislature's
Court’s
Permission and the
11. Id.
Consent,
Liability Re-
Law Social Host
Common
45,
Minnesota,
L.Rev.
21 Wm. Mitch.
turns to
121-22,
Id.,
16. at Id. 838. 22. Id.
17. at Id. 837. added). (emphasis 23. at 18. at Id. added). Id. at 596 at 594-95.
m private violated the they could club a non-member even if appellants claim Only taken the sec- had of the club’s license.30 a sale or barter terms prove that part of the test was issue—whether place.”25 ond “substantially to the the violation related had which In 1985 sought by the purposes to be achieved Civil (1984), § 340.95 at Minn.Stat. been codified Damages Act.”31 held that it was sub- by a Civil new repealed replaced “im- stantially because the sale related § 340A.801 pact[ed] public’s access to and con- (1986).26 of the Act was portion The relevant amended, beverages” of alcoholic eliminating sumption again this time —therefore limiting liability exclu- an sale.32 But the court’s hold- it was term “bartered” beverages: sively to the sale was limited: child, Right parent, spouse, of action. A opinion purport to char We do in- guardian, employer or Chapter what further violations of acterize jured or means person, property, 340A, any, might be covered under by the intoxicated support, Damages Act. Our decision is limited right person, has a intoxication another 3k.0A.k0k, club under section licenses all own person’s name 1(3).33 person ivho against a damages sustained *5 evolution of the Act сontinued in 1985 The by that person intoxication caused the of Holmquist the in v. Miller we held that when selling beverages.27 illegally alcoholic preempted Act common law however, significantly the neiv Most negligently served against social hosts sweep- Act untouched Civil left any expansion a of alcohol to minor and Cady that ing holding of our 1982 decision in by legislative coverage be amend- should only providing in of persons the business by legislature responded The ment.34 Act, this liquor by the and are covered part tort amending Act as of a 1990 rejection appellant’s argu- flat-out of court’s package: reform ment, energetically by embraced the dis- so Nothing 6. Common law claims. Subd. sent, lost if the status a social host is chapter law tort precludes in this common given is in return for consideration years or person 21 old claims drinks. knowingly provides furnishes older who judicially again in Act was reviewed The a beverages to under in the context of Rambaum Swisher years.35 age of 21 beverages private sale a club of alcoholic import long history legisla- The applied two-part to a non-member.28 We interpretation is this: “duet” tive particular sale test to determine whether action/court liability injuries caused sale of illegal.29 part The first —whether law and was unknown to common Chapter sale 340A—was was in violation solely jurisprudence as a beverages by part met the sale of alcoholic is since omitted). /¿.(citation 25. 30. Id. 5, 1985, 305, of June ch. Minn.
26. See Act (emphasis original). Id. in 31. 1454, (repealing replacing Laws 1454-1505 and Act). Liquor including entire Id. at 22. 32. (em- added). Id. 33. added) phasis legislature added the In 1987 the phrase pecuniary "or who loss” incurs 468, 34. 15, 1987, May support." Act of after "meаns 152, 2, 320, 3,§ ch art. 1987 Minn. Laws 555, May Act of ch. the statute has remained the same Otherwise (codified as Minn.Stat. Laws date. 340A.801). Act as Since the amended hosts, apply adult it social does here, high 17-year respondent who was old party. student at the time hosted school legis- legislature. respondent Where the creature of the because attaches to “a person” “illegally holdings sell[s]” alcohol perceived has this court’s and lature intent, “plain under a language” interpretation, strayed its re- has reacted spondent, person,” “a liable. by amending аccordingly.36 the Act This beer, charged She fee for the therefore a Cady clearly holding in in 1982 and court’s place appellant’s argument sale took application of the Act unequivocally —so goes.38 the interplay But between decisions vendors, despite recodi- to commercial and legislative of this court and enactments in of the Act restatement fication makes it clear that no such conclusion can be 1985 and an additional amendment in drawn. This not an area of the law which Cady holding unchanged. remains Fun- legislative suffеrs neglect. The Act is logic damental leads to the undeniable con- stranger legislature; to the it has re- Cady expresses clusion that the will pealed, replaced, subsequently amended legislature legislative rules of construc- years it in the since we ruled in provide.37 tion so legislature intended to immunity create Nonetheless, sweeping Cady dic- aside as hosts, for social even the host received tum, the dissent would take the law full consideration for the alcohol served.39 The circle. would revert to Ross v. Ross amended the Civil hosts to be were intended in 1985 extending without ignoring the fact that the covered hosts, to social rule of construction legislature nullified Ross when it amended applies: “[w]hen last resort has coverage give toAct delete of those who law, the language legisla- construed of a away alcoholic drinks. In stark contrast to subsequent ture subject laws the same legislative response after 17 matter intends the same construction to be years there legislative response has been no placed upon such language.”40 legisla- *6 Cady. to presumptively ture thus adoрted the Cole Cady rulings. and a
Appellant offers of number contentions why, as to despite procedural history, Appellant next argues that in Rambaum respondent not exempt should the we held exchange that of consideration appellant Act. argues plain First that a lan- for alcohol would constitute a “sale” without 340A.801, guage reading § of (1) Minn.Stat. § a license in violation of 340A.702 and against subd. sustains a cause consequently liability of action civil under the Act 120, Minn. at were Compare invited, N.W.2d the costs were off-set token 152, § at charge with Act of June сharge ch. of to glass for a with no $2 $4 1977 Minn. Laws 887. charge might refills, for and as be expected, uninvited attended. That she may (stat- Minn.Stat. 645.17, See subd. 4 more than recovered her costs nominal the that once a of court proper presumption amount Paul "in the business hardly puts language last resort has the of a providing interpreted The facts here are liquor.” virtually legislature statute is that intends the same indistinguishable in those Cole we meaning in laws sub- same subsequent affirmed dismissal dram claims shop ject). charged "kegger" hosts who for beer at addressing without even the contention raised by agrees 38. The dissent with the and appellant receiving the dissent that consideration to chooses the court’s apparently interpret plain change the host’s status under the Civil language that in Cady liability applied Act. providing in the business of and "person liquor, Nor is holding it the case that the is mere not a social who host receive some happens dicta —based on the court's extensive analysis consideration from his in return for drinks legislative intent, clear ruled: unequivocally he at 596, N.W.2d as not Cady, provides," not maintain their "respоndents claim may precluding for those in not necessarily even if could that a appellants they prove providing the business of The dissent's liquor. sale or barter had taken place." Cady, conclusion that because received Paul consider- subject significant ation, is a from, holding our departure Cady. Despite efforts to dissent's characterize Paul’s as a party commercial is not enterprise, simply case —the was at her home, father's friends 645.17, subd. 4. admittedly to include our host” ignores This assertion attach. would intoxicating beverag- illegal sale of made an rul- that our in Rambaum explicit statement licenses,41 es. to club ing was Further, it is it here. to extend decline majority’s reasoning focuses on the holding Cady’s directly at odds history of the Civil Dam- legislative lengthy “com- host” and “social between
threshold However, only legislative history is Act. ages mere than the more requires mercial vendor” statutory construing tool for used as a to be giving of consideration. legislative language is language when sec- Last, changes to other cites appellant explicit. or not When the words ambiguous increasing thе criminal of Ch. 340A tions ambigu- free from all are clear and of the law of alcohol illegal sale penalties for the law shall not be disre- ity, “the letter of intent establishing legislative minors as pretext pursuing garded under liability un- extend civil Cady and repudiate language of the Civil spirit.”1 The argument hosts. This the Act to social der unambiguously clearly provides being of the Act in the context unpersuasive “against person exists a cause of action any sug- Cady without amended since twice injures [one caused the intoxication in that holding with our gestion of discontent by illegally selling person] another case. majority opinion disre- beverages.”2 The pretext of the law under the gards the letter that the decide While judicially-created spirit pursuing needs to be Damages Act reach of the Civil exception to this statute. social host amended, preroga it is not revisited and Our in Ross v. Ross.42 so as we said tive do approximately Paul collected $190 separa respect precedent profit selling alcohol 50 to made a $70 dictates no powers doctrine tion at her father’s home on present 70 minors Accordingly, we conclude result. ille- night question. Those sales were host, liabil respondent is immune from license,3 lack a gal: did Paul ity under minor, Paul, sold alcohol to herself but and affirm the court argu- age of 21.4 At oral others under appeals. ment, that the fur- Paul’s counsel conceded Affirmed. beverages was an nishing of alcoholic *7 these facts. sale under PAGE, (dissenting). Justice Paul, undisputed that herself it is While per- person A is respectfully I dissent. minor, illegally provided other minors with ,1 illegal sale is an is a ... and an son beverages, majority nonethe- intoxicating ... illegal sale is an sale her from under less insulates exception host” judicially-created “social GILBERT, (dissenting). Justice that a previously have held the Act. We liable the Act.5 How- majority host is not under dissent from the respectfully I ever, yet to define the term “social Ra- we have By insulating respondent, opinion. host,” term Paul, previously applied the any liability partic- for her and have chel from intoxicating beverag- only to selling intoxicating bever- situations ipation illegally minors, away. never majority given We have opinion not es were ages to applies only to commercial ven- language Dam- that the Act ignores plain of the Civil host defining the term social expands the term “social dors. Without ages but also 340A.801, (1998). subd. 1 at 22. 2. Minn.Stat. 41. 340A.301, (1998). subd. 1 Minn. Stat. (1998). Stat. subd. 1 4. Minn. Seuss, (1954). Hears a Who! 1.See Dr. Horton Coleman, (Minn. Cady (1998). 1982). § 645.16 contexts, analyzing whether or even Paul falls within this classification is erroneous un- category, majority summarily con- der the facts of this case. When we have summary judgment is appropri- cludes that previously applied the definition of “social For ate because Paul was social host. host,” it has giving been limited to those reаsons, difficulty I several with that Cole, away intoxicating beverages. In we conclusion. emphasized legislature’s removal of the “giving” word First, Act.10 provides the Act a cause of action We thus the term “social “a who host” to a causes intoxication gave brother, sister injures by illegally sell- alcohol her [one another] an Page’s beverages.”6 As guest alcoholic Justice individual who free beer to a us, eloquently dissent so reminds is a Paul at party where other contributed to person. ago, Just a few short we months beer, the cost of the to an individual whо phrase addressed the definition “other “gratuitously” guest served alcohol ato at a person” as in reference to used determine wedding reception.11 Despite this eligible bring is cause of action Cole, holding majority’s use of the under the Act.7 held that Act is to be today term suggests that “social host” means liberally construed in order to further its anyone other than a commercial vendor. purpose suppressing illegal furnishing “the Considering fact-specific nature of the intoxication,” liquor causing person’s decisions, Cady and Cole this construction of phrase thus person” “other meant the term major “social host” constitutes a any person injured by an intoxicated individ- change in the law. today majority ignores ual.8 Yet It is true that Paul holding did not have a effectively recent and instead holds license “person” and was not in the scope regu that Paúl within the business of larly selling the Act. It alcoholic beverages seems to me if we are to out “person” way construe the' term majority father’s home. The relies on dicta purpose Cady furthers the at a mini- to conclude that because Paul is mum that term should be im- construed to not “in the business of providing liquor,” she pose liability “person” Paul, on a such who qualifies However, as a social host.12 profited by illegally selling beverag- ignores conclusion holding the true large Any es to a number of minors. paid the consideration in this ease. In interpretation “person” destroys of the word Cady, exemption we held that an applied to plain meaning of this word in this reme- “a happened] social host who to receive statute, thereby dial long violates our some consideration from his in return established rule of interpreting unambigu- provided.”13 phrase drinks he This can ous statute in plain accordance with its lan- not, not, and should be read to all insulate guage. people except commercial vendors from lia bility. troubling specifically
Even more
than
In
majority’s
also
held that
*8
“per-
place
exclusion of Paul
“no
category
from the
barter took
because no consider
majority’s
sons”
summary
is the
given in exchange
classification ation was
appellant’s
* *
*
*
“social
might
liquor.
host.” While this
requires
Consideration
appropriate
be an
determination
voluntary
in other
assumptiоn of an obligation by one
6.
add-
cisión in Ross v.
294 Minn.
ed).
(1972),
N.W.2d 149
imposed liability
19-year-old
gratuitously provided
on a
minors,
two
Inc.,
Hoggsbreath Enterprises,
7.
Lefto
brother,
including
younger
his
with in-
N.W.2d
toxicating beverages.
at
Id.
kegs of and hired adult beer essentially as a bouncer for money and serve (dissent- ANDERSON, H. PAUL Justice merely accepting than party. Rather ing). to cov- contributions from friends or relatives join in I the dissent Justice Gilbert. costs, profit by charging gained er Paul enter the home. Paul strangers admission to acquainted persоnally
admitted that she present. only people 5 of the 50 to 70 partake permitted
No one was to enter or they paid admis- beverages unless recoup her costs
sion fee. Not did Paul $70, profited evening, she also 17-year-old providing two small sum for Minnesota, Respondent, STATE facts, I kegs to minors. Under these of beer difficulty reaching the conclusion that just merely hap- host who Paul was a social CAMP, Craig Appellant. Kendall pened to receive some consideration. No. C2-97-1028. ignore simple To and basic facts' of this that Paul is a sociаl host is to case and hold Supreme Court of Minnesota. means consequence-free offer minors a earning providing while alcohol to March profit facts be- strangers friends and alike.15 The analogous to a social situation
fore us are not week- party, game,
such as a card football gathering gather to social-
end where friends and, costs, accepts help
ize cover the host acquaintances.
contributions from social acquaintances
Paul did not invite friends and intention of socializ-
into her home with the instead, charged
ing; admission
strangers came to her father’s home to intoxicating beverages. As' could be
drink strangers bought
expected, one of these
beer from Paul became intoxicated and se-
verely injured person. Insulating another circumstances
Paul from under these *9 likely legisla-
is a result unintended purposes of the Act.
ture and violative prior majority opinion uses dicta from plain language
cases to override the of this charge came that the idea admission id. parties that she had attended at which might partici- that other minors 15. The notion charged. admission was pate activities with similar conse- in similar quences admitted is not unfounded. Paul herself