holding that "neither a common law negligence action nor a public nuisance action against the vendor exists, . . . the legislature having filled this field through the enactment of General Statutes [§] 30-102, [the Dram Shop Act]"
How later courts described this case
- holding that "neither a common law negligence action nor a public nuisance action against the vendor exists, . . . the legislature having filled this field through the enactment of General Statutes [§] 30-102, [the Dram Shop Act]"
- noting that Ely v. Murphy created a limited exception to the common law rule
- noting importance of distinction between circumstances in each case
- "[a]t common law there is no cause of action based upon negligence in selling alcohol to adults who are known to be intoxicated"
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Overruled on other grounds by Craig v. Driscoll, 262 Conn. 312 (2003)
213 Conn. 343 , 568 A.2d 786 (1990), overruled by Craig v. Driscoll, 262 Conn. 312 , 813 A.2d 1003
Overruled — as noted by a later court
. Driscoll, supra, the Connecticut Supreme Court held that the Connecticut Dram Shop Act was not intended to preclude a common law negligence actions against the sellers of alcohol on grounds of preemption, and that the holding in Quinnett v. Newman, 213 Conn. 343, 568 A.2d 786 (1990) to the contrary ignored the Court’s holding in Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355, 436 A.2d 1 (1980) on the issue of preemption, and that…
medium confidence
The opinion
Hull, J.,
dissenting. I concur with the impeccable logic and strong dissent of the Chief Justice. As Victor Hugo said: “Greater than the tread of mighty armies is an idea whose time has come.” Histoire d’un Crime (1852). The theory on which the existing law is based is an aberration in negligence law and an affront to the memory of the five year old victim in this case.
Judges, like it or not, are part of society. As such, we cannot be blind to changing social mores. A national wave of revulsion has arisen against the frightful tragedies caused by drunken drivers. I take judicial notice of the efforts of MADD, SADD and RID, as well as certain determined Connecticut legislators, to curb such atrocities. The driver in this present case had consumed twelve bottles of beer and six shots of tequila at two bars before he lurched to his car to drive on the highway and snuff out an innocent life.
The continued existence of the present law is a blot on the social conscience and will, sooner or later, be corrected by this court. Why not now?