stating that in some situations “the public interest ... require[s] special rules to protect certain businesses, professions or occupations from the ordinary theories of tort liability”
How later courts described this case
- stating that in some situations “the public interest ... require[s] special rules to protect certain businesses, professions or occupations from the ordinary theories of tort liability”
- rejecting defendant’s argument that 7 A.R.S. §§ 4-244(14) and -246 were “not enacted as safety measures but merely as 8 regulatory measures affecting the liquor industry” and thus holding that “the existence of 9 a tavern owner’s duty to act with care when furnishing liquor to patrons . . . could be 10 postulated upon the affirmative requirements of statute”
- acknowledging that "in some situations, the public interest, constitutional considerations, or both, require special rules to protect certain businesses, professions or occupations from the ordinary theories of tort liability," but nevertheless abolishing the common law doctrine of tavern owner nonliability for acts of intoxicated customers
- relying on A.R.S. § 4-244(14), which makes it unlawful for a licensee to furnish alcohol to an intoxicated person, and “recogniz[ing] the duty described in that statute as a duty imposed by statute and adopted by the common law” (citations omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HOLOHAN, Chief Justice,
specially concurring.
The issue of the duty imposed upon a tavern owner in serving intoxicants is governed by statute, and in my opinion any discussion of common law duty is irrelevant. Subject to this limitation I concur in the decision of the court.