High Court Upholds Law Backing Bar in Drunk-Driving Case

The Supreme Court on Monday upheld California’s law shielding tavern owners from liability in accidents caused by intoxicated patrons, rejecting an appeal from the parents of a young man killed by a drunk driver near a Newport Beach nightspot.

Without endorsing the 1978 law, the justices said in a brief order that the measure did not raise a federal constitutional issue and therefore would not be reviewed.

“This is a terribly disappointing decision,” said Vicky Cloud, acting state administrator for Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD).

“Responsibility has to go beyond just the drunk driver for his actions; it has to extend to the server and the seller as well. Without liability for those groups, we’re not going to see a lot of responsibility--and we are going to see a lot of drunk drivers.”

Lawyers for MADD had urged the high court to strike down the state law, saying it promotes mayhem on the highways by absolving tavern owners of a duty to stop serving customers when they become inebriated.

But lawyers for the Newport tavern, Woody’s Wharf, argued that the Legislature, in passing the law, was entitled to decide that adult customers should be responsible for their own actions.

Delighted by Ruling

“I’m delighted, to be honest,” said Lee A. Wood, a Costa Mesa attorney who represented the establishment. “We’ve been very, very concerned about this case because of the devastating impact that it could have had statewide.”

Wood, echoing the themes that the liquor and restaurant industries have used to combat efforts to reimpose civil liability on alcohol servers, said: “To overturn (the 1978 shield law) would have opened the door again to widespread liability claims and created havoc in the insurance business.”

The case before the high court was based on a March 10, 1985, accident in which Joey Howe, 20, was struck and killed by a pickup as he was riding his bicycle home from work along the Pacific Coast Highway. The driver, Steven Chase, had just left Woody’s Wharf, where, witnesses said, he had become so intoxicated that he had fallen off a bar stool. After his arrest, his blood alcohol level was .30%, three times the legal limit.

The cyclist’s parents, Joseph and Dorothy Howe of Arizona, filed a suit against the bar, but it was dismissed under the 1978 law.

An Orange County appellate court, which also rejected their claim, blamed the Legislature, pointing out in its opinion that the judges have to abide by the law “no matter how distasteful the result.”

In their appeal to the Supreme Court, the Howes said the law violated the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment because it “discriminates against the victims of crime” in order to protect “a powerful special interest group, the liquor lobby.” Striking down the law as unconstitutional would have a “sobering effect” on tavern owners because it would force them to be more prudent in serving alcohol, they said.

Joseph Howe, a Superior Court judge in Arizona, declined to comment Monday when told of the Supreme Court’s ruling.

According to the Howes’ attorney, Robert A. Rees of Los Angeles, Chase, the driver in the accident, was convicted of drunk driving and served 16 months in prison.

Rees, disappointed with Monday’s brief ruling, said he had hoped that the Supreme Court would “take a long, hard look” at the 1978 law and rule on its merits, rather than simply finding that there was no federal question for it to decide.

“Frankly, I hope this makes people angry about the laws on the books (in California) and makes them realize that next time it could be them or their kids who are the victims and that they won’t be left with any legal recourse,” Rees said.

James F. Mosher, a drunk-driving expert with the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems, said that while the ruling was not a surprise, “it’s too bad in terms of protecting the victims of drunk driving and putting pressure on the alcohol servers.”

Mosher, author of a model law that would impose liability on servers, said the legislative arena still appears the most fruitful for reimposing server liability, but “the court certainly could have helped us out.”

The state law providing immunity for public establishments and their employees is relatively broad, providing an exception only when the customer is a minor. In that case, a bartender or tavern owner can be sued if a drunk minor injures himself or others.

The California liquor and restaurant industries had successfully lobbied for the measure out of fear of huge damage verdicts growing out of drunk-driving incidents.

Cloud, of MADD, said the Supreme Court’s ruling seems to leave anti-drunk-driving activists only legislative means for reimposing liability on alcohol servers. Several bills in the state Legislature have gone down to defeat over the last decade under pressure from the liquor and restaurant industry.

Staff writer Eric Lichtblau contributed to this story.