*1 Edward PETERS SAFT, et al.
Scott Court of Maine.
Supreme Judicial
Argued June Sept.
Decided
WATHEN, Justice. Saft, Powell,
Defendants Scott Kershaw Whitmore, State, Richard interven- defendant, ing appeal as a the decision and (Kennebec Superior order of the Alexander, J) County, plaintiff Edward declaratory judgment Peters’ action. De- challenge fendants the court’s determina- damage cap tion that included Liquor Act, Liability Maine’s (1988), M.R.S.A. violates both §§ the state equal protection and federal clause. Plaintiff seeks to reinforce the ruling by court’s arguing that the offend- ing provision also violates his of due process, his to trial and his “open under the courts” provision of the Maine By Constitution. cross-appeal, plaintiff challenges provisions court’s determination that other Specifically, of the Act are constitutional. plaintiff challenges the fact that the Act remedies, excludes all joint abolishes requires and a notice of claim. Finding declaring any portion no basis for unconstitutional, of the Act we vacate the deny Court and (orally), John A. McArdle Mark L. cross-appeal.
Randall, P.A., Portland, Daniel Lilley, G. brought against Saft, Plaintiff an action plaintiff. for Whitmore, alleging Powell and that he at- Carpenter, Gen., Michael E. Atty. Peter party tended a held at the home of Powell (orally), Atty. Gen., J. Brann Augus- Asst. alleges and hosted Saft. He that while ta, for intervenor. party, at the pushed he was into the shal- swimming low end of a pool Whitmore Connors, Pierce, Atwood, Catherine R. and spinal injury. received serious cord Scribner, Allen, Lancaster, Smith & Port- alleges that Saft was server of land, curiae, for amicus Lawyers Trial meaning alcohol within the Ass’n. Act, that Powell knew that alcohol Piper, Allen, Preti, Jonathan S. Jill M.P. served, negligently would be and that Saft Flaherty, Pachios, Portland, Beliveau & for served Whitmore alcohol when Whitmore curiae, amicus St. Paul Fire and Marine visibly sought was intoxicated. He actual Ins. Co. punitive damages negligence, liabil- (orally), James M. Bowie Elizabeth G. Act, ity battery negligent under the Knox, Bowie, Thompson Portland, & provide prompt failure to medical A care. defendants Saft and Powell. separate plaintiff’s complaint count of chal- lenged constitutionality of the Act on a Lavoie, Margaret Cushing, Mark G. Nor- grounds sought number of a declara- man, Portland, Detroy, Hanson & for de- portions tion that of the Act are unconstitu- fendant Whitmore. tional. The State intervened to defend McKUSICK, C.J., ROBERTS, and, constitutionality Before of the Act after hear- WATHEN, GLASSMAN, ing, CLIFFORD and Court determined COLLINS, damage cap JJ. set forth in 28-A M.R.S.A. equal protection. Reject- objectives 2509 violated of those efforts. The ing plaintiff’s the con- challenging the classification bears the statute, stitutionality of the the court di- demonstrating by burden clear and entry judgment pursu- rected of a final irrefutable evidence its arbitrariness and *3 54(b) ant to M.R.Civ.P. and defendants and irrationally discriminatory nature. Fur- appealed. the State ther, upheld if law will be there ex- any ists conceivable state of facts which
I
Thus,
justifies the distinction.
even if
1987,
In
pre-
Maine enacted the
the classification lacks mathematical
cision,
setting
Act
forth an exclusive
law survives constitutional
persons injured
scrutiny
for
as the result of
unless there exists no conceiva-
negligent
liquor by
prevents
or reckless service of
ble set of facts which
the char-
any person providing liquor
licensee or
to
acterization
... as
[of
classification]
another.
arbitrary,
28-A M.R.S.A.
2501-2519.
invidious or irrational.
§§
Damages under the Act are limited as fol
Lewiston,
City
Beaulieu v.
440 A.2d
lows:
334,
(citations
(Me.1982)
omitted)
338-39
damages
In
permitted by
actions for
this
(footnote omitted) (emphasis
original);
Act, the
damages
claim for and award of
Club,
see Danish Health
Inc. v. Town of
losses,
all
except expenses
for
for medi-
663,
(Me.1989);
Kittery, 562 A.2d
treatment,
cal
including
care and
devices
221,
Wilson,
230,101
450 U.S.
Schweiker
aids, against
and
and the
both
server
1074, 1080,
(1981).
S.Ct.
age cap gives
liquor
compared
best means to achieve the desired result
citizens,
private
spe-
to all other
Legislature and not the
are matters for the
handicap
damage cap
cial
which the
im-
court.” State v. Fantastic Fair & Karmil
poses
negligent liquor
victims
ser-
Corp., 158 Me.
Merchandising
vers, compared to victims of all other
(1961)(quoting
ally jointly liable and not liable for that percentage plaintiff’s damages II *5 corresponds to each defendant’s which challenges cross-appeal plaintiff On by percentage of fault as determined the failure down the Court’s to strike jury. court or provisions. regard exclusivi With to 28-A M.R.S.A. 2512. We find no consti- § ty, provided the Act that it “is the exclu pur- the tutional violation. One of stated remedy against who be sive servers poses of the Act is to allocate 2505, for made defendants under section payment damages fairly in order to en- suffering damages claims those based availability of courage the insurance. liquor.” the on servers’ service rationally legislative purpose is related repeats Plaintiff the ar M.R.S.A. 2511. § welfare, and the means em- public the gument damage cap: made the if in a rational rela- ployed section 2512 bear cap the Act is exclusivé and includes a pur- tionship to the achievement of that damages, negligent alcohol the victims of pose. deprived remedy servers will be of the full Finally, plaintiff the no they otherwise would have had at common provision: of claims tice argues that the exclu law. Plaintiff also Every plaintiff seeking damages under sivity provision right jury burdens his give Act must written notice to all this arguments trial. His are without merit. days 180 of the date of defendants within upheld exclusivity provisions have in We creating liability server’s conduct un- the instances, Beverage v. Cumberland give der this Act.... Failure to written Inc., Northern, 488- Farms 502 A.2d specified the time is notice within (Me.1985)(worker’s compensation), and 489 claim, grounds for dismissal of the un- Klingerman acknowledged in we plaintiff provides less the written notice provide an exclusive reme of section 2514 and within the limits liability. 505 dy liquor Klingerman, good why cause notice could not shows (“If not consti A.2d at 476 the statute does the reasonably have been filed within remedy, the the merits of the tute exclusive 180-day limit. governed action will common law argues exclusivity provision is 28-A M.R.S.A. principles.”). The provision places an enormous bur- rationally goal the stated of mak that this related to no him and is irrational. We find ing predictable, the of the server den on burden, light in particularly giving at the same time victims a undue while shown, the statute good un fact that for cause cause of action that was heretofore permits bringing of an action even af- thus satisfies substan clear. Section 2511 legit- days. 2513 has a process equal protection, and ter the 180 Section tive due of the right purpose imate related to the ends does not violate the trial Act; potential makes defendants aware remedy. it
55 challenge the consti case does not and recol instant preserve need to evidence claims, law rule but lections, tutionality this common out doubtful it weeds prompt settlement of valid Maine promotes that contends Center, (MLLA) spe claims. v. Maine Medical places Givertz an unconstitutional Act (Me.1983); Faucher A.2d 550-551 plaintiff. The new cause on the cial burden Auburn, 465 A.2d 1124-25 City v. by the enactment provided of action Quinn, 445 (Me.1983); v. see also Giberson repealed in 1987. See Shop Act was Dram (“Maine (Me.1982) law is A.2d A, P.L.1987, Subsequently, the ch. periods in replete relatively brief time again a new cause of Legislature created required is to act or other which a providing action both rights.”). the loss of wise risk law its common contravention the MLLA. Because enactment of entry is: plaintiff, and all like provides the MLLA Judgment part. Remanded to vacated recovery against to seek plaintiffs, entry for the of a decla- medical ex provider of alcohol for all constitutionality of section ration of damages up to any other penses and for respects, 2509. In all other $250,000 under right unavailable —a affirmed. is argue cannot that common law—he impos MLLA damage cap provision of the McKUSICK, C.J., and CLIFFORD Cf., him. burden on es an unconstitutional JJ., COLLINS, concurring. Co., Paving e.g., Standard Seifert Justice, GLASSMAN, with whom 109, 120, N.E.2d Ill.2d Justice, ROBERTS, concurring. joins, *6 (1976)(limitation damages in recov tort Although agree I with the Court’s con- waiving under statute ery against state clusion that implicate governmental immunity does not vacated, poses must this case no no cause equal protection concerns because analysis set constitutional issues. enactment). prior of action opinion be un- forth in the Court’s should only dertaken after the Court has deter- party challenging
mined that the the consti-
tutionality legislative enactment on of a
equal protection grounds has demonstrated persons in fact classifies
that the statute or under the
for different benefits burdens This is not such a case. There is no
law. the statute claim in the instant case that of Maine STATE special legal remedy to a class provides a v. including in plaintiffs -without that class persons similarly situated. all Raymond PHANEUF. it was not a tort to sell At common law Court of Maine. Supreme Judicial and a give alcohol to another 19, 1991. on Briefs June Submitted injured by the consumer of alcohol provider not recover 25, Sept. Decided supporting provider alcohol. The rationale consumption of
non-liability was that the it, alcohol, providing of was the not the injuries.
proximate cause of the See Cur- 442, McKee, 59 A.
rier v. 99 Me. (1904); 95 Me. Day, Gardner (1901); A. see also Com-
ment, Model Act: From “Maine Law” to Maine, Me.L.Rev. Liability in plaintiff in the