*1 her inabil- reliability clearly lack of demonstrated Ambrose’s or, location at as in the particular times ity predict defendant’s home, This de- Street at a address. particular case with the Columbia against con- relayed accurate information she ficiency is balanced and the frequent presence Budgetel at the Hotel cerning defendant’s had received from his Frank money neighbors, fact that defendant also adds to James. fact that she lived with defendant and Betty her presents knowledge underlying a solid basis of credibility her However, severely to Gartrell di- her refusal to herself tip. identify So, too, that she never stated her does fact reliability. minishes from. calling or where she was how knew the information she no indi- drugs, tip gives and her have no she ever saw indication but the unknown anywhere these were to be found drugs cation that find the trial court’s de- Street. we address on Columbia erroneous. suppress manifestly motion to nial of the Reversed.
STEIGMANN, COOK,J., concur. P.J., and Robertson, ROBERTSON, Gary Lee of the Estate Adm'r GARY LYNN al., Defendants-Appellees. et Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CRAIG OKRAJ 4—93—0157 District No. Fourth 16, 1993. September filed August 24, Opinion Argued J., KNECHT, dissenting. Ltd., Manion, Devens, of Dan (argued), Janov & McFetridge
John D. ville, appellant. *2 Erickson, Davis, Griffith & Murphy, (argued), of Murphy Scott
W. Walsh, Ltd., Decatur, appellees. of the delivered the of court: GREEN
JUSTICE Robertson, administrator plaintiff Gary Lynn August On deceased, com Robertson, filed an amended Lee Gary of the estate of defendants Champaign County against court of in the circuit plaint remand Okraj, following and Judith Craig Okraj, Okraj, Robert (un 4—91—0512 Okraj (4th 1992), Dist. No. (Robertson this court. dam 23).) sought Court Rule Plaintiff published Supreme order February of the decedent. wrongful for the On ages allegedly motion defendants’ granting the circuit court entered an order amended, to state a cause of to the as for failure complaint, dismiss Plaintiff affirm. appeals. action as to defendant. in- I, II, III six-count amended complaint
Counts and (1) that on October each of the defendants allegations against cluded of the defendants and invitee guest the decedent was care for home; to exercise reasonable (2) duty their defendants had a decedent; decedent with alco- (3) provided defendants safety consumed, and he became beverages, holic which decedent unconscious, unconscious; was intoxicated and (4) and while decedent Craig premises by defendants’ defendant decedent was removed from others, occupied an apartment was taken automobile to Okraj and abandoned; (5) Okraj’s and persons, decedent and certain third in an automo- decedent was the decedent placing last contact with who also bile; Cooper, and Todd (6) persons, Gary Townsley the third decedent on the the unconscious apartment, “deposited” lived bed; (7) him in Gina floor of and apartment subsequently placed making or “snor- “gurgling” Bilaski and later heard decedent Cooper to noises; (a) knowing decedent ing” (8) defendants were in a unconscious, dangerous him negligently placing and carelessly or medical situation, i.e., abandoning him medical assistance without decedent; for the attention; medical assistance (b) failing provide aid; (9) as a treatment, or first (c) to render assistance of gastric died of negligence, aspiration result of defendants’ contents. IV, V, alleged (1) of the defendants were complaint
Counts VI that on October were aware hosting they a party and those who were trader the persons who were over guests included to all 21; defendants served beer and alcohol (2) knowingly age determining without whether minors supervision, and guests, without (3) duty such defendants had a exercise consuming beverages; were and all statutes and ordi- adhering policy to public care ordinary minors; beverages by of alcoholic consumption prohibiting nances drinking that alcoholic bev- knew or should have known (4) defendants per- to cause the intoxicated a state of intoxication as erages to such death; or strong likelihood of injury coma created a experience son age under the guests were many defendants knew (5) intoxication, they continued showing were the effects decedent, (6) these beverages guests; distribute alcoholic death, pur- was a minor for the time of his was 18 old at years he consumed beer and beverages, but consuming alcoholic poses to continue to permitted and was “Everclear” alcohol straight grain in a state of intoxication. beverages already while consume alcoholic to ex- breached that defendants alleged further (1) entrusting by negligently care ordinary ercise 21; al- (2) permitting under the to persons *3 decedent; 21, including the age trader beverages by persons coholic consum- of the minors who were the activities supemse (3) the continu- and (4) permitting and beverages; providing ing the guests under beverages by of alcoholic ous of intoxication. showing the effects already were when such persons or more result of one proximate direct and that as a alleged Plaintiff alco- omissions, consumed the decedent acts and/or negligent ultimate death. in intoxication and resulting his holic in- defendants, causing decedent’s after that the alleged the dece- manner in which determine the toxication, made no effort to con- physical decedent’s the premises, to leave the dent was planning made for his were provisions or what he left the dition when as a direct and was that allegation final Plaintiff’s safety. health and unconscious intoxication, he became result of decedent’s proximate the condition, leaving party, after comatose, in that and while contents. gastric from aspiration died ini- that, it had although case, court noted this this remanding
In the dismissing in court of the circuit the judgment affirmed tially his com- amend easily he could argued had plaintiff the complaint, v. Inman in Cravens recognized action a cause of plaint allege de Cravens was 1059, 586 N.E.2d Since here, this court de the appeal cided after circuit court dismissed the him to allowing by would be served plaintiff termined fairness to to Cravens. pursuant amend his complaint defendants’ motion to dis allowed subsequently
The trial court are so the facts of Cravens stating that complaint, miss the amended The court inapposite. at that Cravens is dissimilar to the case bar facts, precedent required limited to its own noted Cravens was a in the prem that the defendants “did not owe conclusion to sec complaint pursuant ises.” dismissed the court 1991, ch. Procedure. Ill. Rev. Stat. tion 2—615 of the Code of Civil 2—615. Ltd. Lounge, In v. Carde Fitzpatrick “recog court that the court held Cravens negligence liability of social host for automobile
nized existence intoxicated minor driver.” The Fitz by accident caused injuries that the in Cravens was limited to patrick holding court emphasized Cravens, In plaintiff’s in alleged plaintiff’s pleading. facts precise in acci minor she sustained an automobile daughter injuries died in a motor passenger dent occurred while the minor was a vehi which friend, Lenzi, a minor. That plain cle a Rita who was also by driven alcohol to serving tiff those defendants were alleged (1) home; allowed (2) Lenzi at a at their those defendants gathering social automobile; their home in an Lenzi to become intoxicated and leave manner, reckless Lenzi thereafter drove the automobile (3) of decedent. resulting in a crash that caused extraordinary toll emphasized The Cravens court repeatedly auto damage caused alcohol-related personal injuries property that other States have rec accidents. The court further noted mobile has alcohol to a host “where the host served ognized social automobile, and causes an intoxicated, drives an minor who becomes (Cravens, accident.” injury-producing of counts II the trial court’s dismissal reversing
N.E.2d at remanding to the complaint, and III of amended limited to those court, holding court stated its trial the Cravens respect no with alleged plaintiff expressed facts other factual situations. amend his com- opportunity
This court allowed *4 recognized of action alleging of a cause purpose for plaint solely Here, intoxicated person to do so. in Cravens. Plaintiff was unable died, did not drive an auto- of on the he night was 18 years 852
mobile, and his injuries death did not result from sustained an auto- collision. has mobile failed state a cause action clearly Cravens. holding based upon narrow Moreover, failed plaintiff has to state cause of action Illinois does not a common law cause of theory. generally recognize they are commercial against liquor, suppli action whether suppliers v. Brown 23, 22 2d or (Cunningham (1961), 153) ers Ill. 174 N.E.2d (Heldt v. Brei 798, (1983), App. 118 Ill. 3d suppliers noncommercial Rather, 842). against the only remedy suppliers liquor 455 N.E.2d (Act) (Ill. is Act of 1934 Rev. Liquor Control provided by et 1991, have seq.). 43, only ch. 93.9 The been exceptions Stat. dramshop protect where the owner of a for premises (e.g., its harm persons from on the patrons physical by Hurtt 195, 125, Lessner v. 197, 3d 371 N.E.2d (1977), App. intoxicated, of a took an uncon 126) and where the owners tavern building freezing out of the him in his car patron placed scious Gower, Inc. Ill. (Harris v. 153 (1987), where he froze Harris 1036-37, 624, court lia 1035, 625). N.E.2d found 506 in a placed position peril defendants decedent bility because they provided and not foreseeably injured where he would because he consumed. alcoholic which liquors any recognized not come within exception
The instant case does limitation alcohol: the decedent was liability providing premises; on defendants did not harmed a third defendants’ person in foreseeably he would position not in a where place and unlike in Erne Peace defendants; jured such as did the Harris 420, 1203, plaintiff, 517 N.E.2d cited (1987), he was on protecting met their decedent while defendants burden roommates, care of entrusting decedent to the his property, their ultimately put him in his own bed. took him to his own apartment Furthermore, dramshop to instances liability Act restricts or result of the sale damages gift suffers as a person where a third v. Harris Ill. 2d liquors. (Jodelis 118 intoxicating the common Dramshop Act nor 1058.) “Neither the suffer in patrons liability when exposes dramshops law Ill. (Jodelis, 118 2d at a result of their own intoxication.” juries as the intox been found when 517 N.E.2d at Nor has injured. leaves the person icated v. 7-11 Food Stores Gora liquors plaintiff purchased the 17-year-old N.E.2d snow, in a bank defendant, and unconscious became intoxicated had The court stated injuries. related frostbite and suffered *5 awas though plaintiff law even the Act or common no remedy purchase class of whose persons of a protected minor and a member of liquor statutorily prohibited. was host than would be on a social greater duty even
Placing an precedent, logical. prevailing is not Under dramshop a placed upon Cravens, who in social hosts stated under the circumstances except if the subse guest guest to a are not liable furnish alcoholic herself. See Estate himself or injures quently becomes 848, 846, 572 N.E.2d 3d (1991), v. Farrell Ritchie 367, 368. decedent, voluntarily allegedly no to duty Defendants owed persons third subse- intoxicated, left the with became while gastric contents aspiration of an unforeseeable quently died he in his own bed. recog to Illinois have refused repeatedly
This court and all courts provided liquor a social host who has against nize a cause of action (See, e.g., Flory after a leaving private party. who dies individual 105.) v. Ill. 553 N.E.2d Under Weaver case, not owe a dramshop duty facts of this even a owner would decedent. stated, of the circuit judgment for the reasons
court is affirmed.
Affirmed.
COOK,J., concurs. KNECHT, dissenting:
JUSTICE need I do not Cravens disagree majority with the believe Quinn Further, Sigma Chap Rho read so our narrowly. 231, 507 Fraternity (1987), ter Beta Theta Pi 1193, is supportive plaintiff’s position. N.E.2d law, that re- state of the expand present are asked to and societal con- given the decision Cravens quest surprising is not drinkers. by underage cern with the abuse of alcohol posi the merits of recovery, The of ultimate questions somehow inter tion friends or roommates and whether decedent’s This plead are not before us. vened and chain causation broke host have a on Does a social ing hinge duty. motion to dismiss The furnishing underage guests? intoxicants to refrain that conduct law make statutory is The yes. public policy answer a crime. Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. (Ill. is a Class B misdemeanor. Rev. Stat. ch.
Hazing a of our par. 221.) significant part The of that statute was violation Quinn. view, against furnishing legal prohibition decision in my life, of human health designed protection alcohol to minors is prima evidence of and welfare. The violation such statute facie City Bank v. Aurora (First National negligence. The decedent here was 18 and was a designed protect. the statute was persons member of class designed prevent, suffered the harm the statute was i.e., Quinn is logically he became intoxicated and died. Our decision in this case. extending social host legally supportive this to himself argued it can the decedent did
Perhaps argument of alcohol. That does choosing quantities to consume vast a cause of action has been stated not address the issue of whether al- complaint social hosts who—on the basis against *6 —furnished drinkers, precautions prevent underage took no underage cohol drinking easy availability because drinking, tacitly encouraged intoxicated and uncon- nothing and then did when decedent became likely things happen It is that bad will when scious. foreseeable point to the of inebriation. What underage drinkers consume alcohol prevent is it to such an occurrence? burden gatherings might large choose not to serve alcohol social One might obey choose to regulated. where cannot One Those furnishing underage guests. alcohol to the law and refrain dangerous. activity illegal are not steps burdensome. Cravens may limited to drunk drivers the serious suggest problem Quinn sug- and this case to third Both persons. and the harm caused intrudes into our gest problem goes beyond highways schools, lives, our families and our homes. our social to recover. not deserve may never recover. Plaintiff may intervening cause. Those may There be no There liability. may now, the has stated a cause are for another For day. matters of action.