66
C
ASE: 9
BACKGROUND
· A minor, Taylor Ward, was hosting a teenage party in a barn located in the back of his parents'
house where partygoers were drinking and using illegal drugs.
· The Plainti , Bridget Selwyn, a teenage girl, was injured at the party when one of the teenagers
poured a bottle of Everclear grain alcohol onto an open re, which exploded.
· A minor, Lauren Andrews, not present at the party, purchased the bottle of Everclear from RC
Liquors, Inc. several weeks prior to the incident.
· Relying on the R.I. Dram Shop Act, the Plainti sued, among others, RC Liquors for selling alcohol
to a minor alleging (a) negligence and (b) strict liability. Under her negligence theory, Selwyn
alleged that RC Liquors breached its duty of care when it sold grain alcohol to Lauren Andrews
because it knew or should have known of the " re play" linked to grain alcohol. Under her strict
liability theory, Selwyn stated that selling alcohol to minors is an ultrahazardous activity.
BEFORE YOU BEGIN
You Be the Judge!
You Be the Judge!
What is a Dram Shop Act?
A Dram Shop Act creates liability for liquor
stores and other commercial establishments
that serve alcoholic beverages to minors.
Dram Shop Acts establish liability of
establishments from the sale of alcohol to
minors where said minors are injured or cause
injury to third parties.
What are the factors to consider in a
Negligence action?
To win a negligence case, the Plainti must
establish a duty owed by the Defendant to
the Plainti , a breach of that duty, proximate
cause between the conduct and the injury,
and actual loss or damage.
What is Strict (Products) Liability?
In a strict liability lawsuit, Planti s claim that
their injuries are proximately caused by some
ultrahazardous or abnormally dangerous
activity of the Defendant.
What is an "ultrahazardous" and
"abnormally dangerous" activity?
An ultrahazardous and abnormally dangerous
activity is one that is so inherently dangerous
that a person engaged in such an activity
should be held strictly liable for injuries
caused to another person--even if the
person engaged in the activity took every
reasonable precaution to prevent others
from being injured. To determine whether
an activity is ultrahazardous or abnormally
dangerous, courts consider various factors: (a)
the risk of harm to others, (b) the likelihood
that the harm that results from it will be
great, (c) the inability to reasonably eliminate
the risk by exercising reasonable care, (d)
the commonality of the activity, (e) the
inappropriateness of the activity, and (f) the
value of the activity to the community.
Selwyn v. Ward
Duty of Care in Negligence and Strict Liability Actions
For Evaluation Purposes Only