Introduction

The case of Robert Steve Christen v. Victor K. Lee, et al. and Matt Long v. Steven Kenneth Coates, et al. consolidated under No. 55355-6 and 55367-0, was adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Washington En Banc on October 26, 1989. These cases revolve around the liability of public drinking establishments for damages resulting from criminal assaults perpetrated by their patrons. The plaintiffs sought to hold the proprietors of these establishments accountable for serving alcohol to intoxicated individuals who subsequently engaged in violent behavior. The key issues addressed include the establishment's premises duty, the foreseeability of criminal assault as a result of overserving alcohol, and the applicability of negligence per se based on statutory violations.

Summary of the Judgment

In the instance of Christen's action, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision to some extent, holding that the drinking establishment (China Doll) may be liable under the premises duty doctrine. However, it reversed the judgment regarding the liability for furnishing intoxicating liquor to an obviously intoxicated person, determining that such liability was not supported by sufficient evidence. Conversely, in Long's action, the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that McDougall's was not liable for damages arising from the stabbing incident, as the assault was not a foreseeable consequence of overserving an intoxicated patron.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior Washington Supreme Court cases to contextualize its decisions:

• PURCHASE v. MEYER (1987): Established that a patron's obvious intoxication is determined by observable appearance at the time of service, not by blood alcohol levels or behavior post-service.
• DICKINSON v. EDWARDS (1986): Considered the sufficiency of admission of alcohol consumption in establishing obvious intoxication.
• RIKSTAD v. HOLMBERG (1969): Discussed foreseeability and intervening causes in negligence.
• WALDRON v. HAMMOND (1967): Addressed premises duty and liability for assaults committed on or about the premises.
• MOORE v. MAYFAIR TAVERN, INC. (1969): Found that the lack of indication of potential violence does not impose liability on the establishment.

These cases collectively informed the Court's approach to determining duty, breach, and foreseeability in the context of overserving alcohol.

Legal Reasoning

The Court's legal reasoning hinged on two main doctrines: premises duty and foreseeability.

• Premises Duty: Establishments that serve alcohol have a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect patrons from harm caused by other patrons. This includes intervening in developing confrontations.
• Foreseeability: For an establishment to be liable, the harm must be a foreseeable consequence of their actions. In these cases, the Court examined whether criminal assaults were within the range of foreseeable outcomes from overserving alcohol.

In Christen's case, the Court found sufficient evidence that the China Doll may have breached its premises duty by failing to intervene in a confrontation that led to Christen being shot. However, the Court determined that the assault was not a foreseeable result of serving an obviously intoxicated patron, thus absolving the establishment from liability under that specific theory.

Conversely, in Long's case, the Court upheld that McDougall's was not liable for the assault committed by Mr. Coates as it was not a foreseeable consequence of overserving him, especially given the lack of prior violent behavior indicative of potential harm.

Impact

This judgment establishes a nuanced approach to premises liability in the context of alcohol service. It clarifies that while establishments must exercise reasonable care to prevent and intervene in present confrontations, they are not automatically liable for unforeseeable criminal acts committed by intoxicated patrons outside their immediate control. This delineation balances the responsibility of establishments to maintain a safe environment without imposing excessive liability for independent criminal actions.

The decision also underscores the limitations of negligence per se in this context, particularly regarding statutory violations not directly intended to prevent criminal assaults. It signals to public establishments the importance of proactive supervision and intervention without overextending their liability.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Premises Duty

Premises Duty refers to the responsibility of a property owner or establishment to ensure the safety of individuals on their premises. In the context of drinking establishments, this duty includes monitoring patron behavior and taking reasonable steps to prevent violence or assaults among patrons.

Foreseeability

Foreseeability is a legal concept that determines whether a particular harm could be anticipated as a result of an action. If a harm is foreseeable, a reasonable person (or establishment) should anticipate and take steps to prevent it. In these cases, the question was whether criminal assault is a foreseeable outcome of overserving alcohol.

Negligence Per Se

Negligence Per Se occurs when an individual violates a statute or regulation, and that violation causes harm that the statute was designed to prevent. The Court examined whether violations of Washington's liquor statutes (prohibiting service to obvious intoxicated persons or minors) automatically constituted negligence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in Christen v. Lee and Long v. Coates delineates the boundaries of liability for drinking establishments concerning assaults by intoxicated patrons. By affirming the premises duty but limiting liability based on foreseeability, the Court strikes a balance between ensuring public safety and recognizing the limits of an establishment's control over patrons' actions outside their immediate environment. This judgment reinforces the necessity for establishments to actively supervise and intervene in violent situations while shielding them from undue liability for independent criminal behavior that was not foreseeable. The decision serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving premises liability and the responsibilities of alcohol-serving establishments.