Opinion by
The plaintiff, David A. Smith, at the age of.nineteen years, was seriously injured when an automobile he was operating left the roadway of State Highway Route 981, near the Borough of Latrobe, Pennsylvania, in the early morning hours of May 14, 1957. This action for damagеs followed. The defendants are the owners of separate business places where intoxicating alcoholic beverages are sold to the public. The complaint is based upon the allegation that shortly before the-accident, the defendants sold alcoholic beverages to the minor plaintiff, who was visibly intoxicated at the time and that thеse unlawful acts were the proximate cause of the accident. The jury returned substantial verdicts in favor of the plaintiffs. A new trial was refused and these appeals from the judgments followed.
Certain trial errors require the grant of a new trial.
The Act of 1951, P. L. 90, 146, §493(1), 47 P.S. §4-493, inter alia, makes it unlawful for any licensеe to sell or furnish any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to a minor
or
to a visibly intoxicated person. That the serving of intoxicants to minors
or
to visibly intoxicated persons are separate and distinct violations, there can be no doubt. If the intoxiсating beverages are sold in violation of this statute, this constitutes negligence, and if the unlawful act or acts are the рroximate cause of an injury, the violator is responsible in damages for the loss suffered:
Schelin v. Gold
*145
berg,
In the present case, the sale of intoxicants to á young mаn, then nineteen years of age, was- a violation of the Act of 1951, supra. There was also ample evidence' to sustain -a finding by a jury thát the minor was served intoxicating beverages, although he was already, visibly intoxicated. If true, this was a second and separate violation of the law. However, for thése violations, or either one of them, to render the defendants civilly liable in this case, the violation or -violations must necessarily be' the proximate cause of the accident involved.
As we read the testimony, the plaintiffs’ proof herein established that the cause of the accident was the minor plaintiff’s intoxication, or at least that he was under the influence of intoxicants and, therefore, incapable оf properly operating the automobile.
Viewing the plaintiffs’ case in its most favorable light, this accident happened because the minor plaintiff failed to properly operate the automobile and negotiate a сurve in the road due to Ms intoxication, or his being under the influence of intoxicants. It did not occur' because he was a minor or because hе, as a minor, had been served some intoxicants in violation of the law. . His intoxication, or his being under the influence of intoxiсants, was an absolute necessary factor in the factual chain. This should have been made crystal clear to thе jury.
We have read and reread the charge of the trial court. We are convinced, that the issues wére not proрerly clarified for the jury and that confusion undoubtedly resulted to defendants’ prejudice.
*146 In the charge, the court emphаsized and made numerous references to the plaintiff’s minority and the fact that it is a violation of the law to furnish one of this class alcoholic beverages. At one point the court charged: “Now, members of the jury, the first thing that you decide, of сourse, is whether or not these defendants. were negligent, and whether that negligence in serving a minor, or serving liquor while he ivas undеr the influence of liquor, was the proximate-cause of the accident. If you believe the testimony that David Smith was pеrfectly sober when he left, you also must find that he did serve a minor which is contrary to law.” 1 This, of course, was not clearly statеd and from the foregoing, the jury could well have concluded that even if the minor plaintiff were absolutely sober that the defendants would still be liable because they furnished him intoxicants in violation of law. Under the circumstances, this was not correct.
It is true that subsequently the trial judge charged that any. negligence established would necessarily have to be the proximate cause of the accident before the plaintiffs could recover, and further that if the intoxicants consumed by the minоr plaintiff did not affect his senses sufficiently to cause the accident, that the verdict should be for the defendants. However, a reading of the charge in its entirety, and considering its general effect leads inescapably to the conclusion that the jury was left with the impression and probably misled into believing that the defendants would be liable- merely because they served the minor intoxicants. This, undoubtedly, occurred because the issues were so intertwined in the instructions, that a proper understanding of the separate questions for determination was highly improbable. Upon what theory the verdict was based, of сourse, is beyond our knowledge.
*147
It is basic to a fair trial that the issues be clearly defined for a jury’s intelligent understanding and that in detеrmining if prejudicial error is present, the entire charge must be considered and its' general effect noted:
Thomas v. Mills,
It furthei appears that an investigating police officer witness was permitted to give his opinion as to the cause of the accident and stated that it “was failure
to
react
2
to make a left curve of the highway. . . .” This conclusion was for the jury and not the witness. Opinion evidence, under the circumstánces, was totally unnecessary, inadmissible and opened the door to the. highly prejudicial response. See,
Graham v. Pennsylvania Co.,
Judgments reversed and a new trial ordered.