Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

03/09/76 SCHOLTEN v. RHOADES

March 9, 1976

SCHOLTEN
v.
RHOADES



Appeal from Kalamazoo, Raymond W. Fox, J.

Quinn, P. J., and J. H. Gillis and Allen, JJ.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

1. Intoxicating Liquors -- Dramshop Act -- Statutes -- Statutory Construction.

The provisions of the dramshop act have consistently been given a liberal construction.

2. Intoxicating Liquors -- Dramshop Act -- Recovery -- Parent and Child -- Third Parties.

Recovery is generally allowed under the dramshop act, upon proofs properly presented, where recovery is sought for the death or injury of a parent or child caused by a third party as a result of intoxicants served to the third party by a defendant dramshop establishment and also where recovery is sought for the death or injury of a parent or child caused by the misdoing of the killed or injured party by reason of intoxicants served to them by a defendant dramshop establishment.

3. Intoxicating Liquors -- Dramshop Act -- Recovery -- Dependents.

Recovery has been consistently denied under the dramshop act where recovery is sought by an intoxicated adult or minor for injuries sustained as a result of being served intoxicants by a defendant dramshop establishment, because the person who caused the evil by purchasing liquor may not complain of evil which he himself has caused however, his dependents may recover in actions in the dependents' own names and not in derivative suits.

4. Intoxicating Liquors -- Dramshop Act -- Amendments -- Name and Retain -- Third-Party Intoxicant.

The name and retain portion of the 1972 amendment to the dramshop act is to be mandatorily applied only where a third-party intoxicant precipitated the loss or where special circumstances would, without the dramshop claim, give a plaintiff a recognized cause of action (MCLA 436.22; MSA 18.993).

5. Intoxicating Liquors -- Voluntary Intoxication -- Cause of Action -- Parent and Child.

A child has no cause of action against his father or father's estate for injuries to or death of the father due to the father's voluntary intoxication, nor does a parent have a cause of action against his minor child for expenses incurred by the parent on behalf of the child due to the child's voluntary intoxication.

6. Intoxicating Liquors -- Dramshop Act -- Amendments -- Name and Retain -- Rules of Procedure.

The name and retain provision of the 1972 amendment to the dramshop act was designed to be basically procedural and not designed to do away with rights which existed ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.