Summary
The Minnesota Supreme Court held that implied primary assumption of risk does not categorically bar an innkeeper-negligence claim arising from injuries connected with the operation and patronage of a bar. The court concluded that disputed facts regarding foreseeability required a fact-finder to decide the negligence claim. It also held that evidence that intoxication was a substantial factor in causing the injury created a fact issue on proximate cause under the Dram Shop Act, making summary judgment improper on both claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether implied primary assumption of risk barred the innkeeper-negligence claim as a matter of law.
- Whether the evidence established as a matter of law that Henson's injury was not foreseeable for purposes of the innkeeper-negligence claim.
- Whether the evidence established as a matter of law that the patrons' intoxication was not a proximate cause of Henson's injury under the Dram Shop Act.
Holdings
- Implied primary assumption of risk does not bar the claim because Minnesota courts should not extend that doctrine to injuries arising from the operation and patronage of bars.
- Foreseeability presented a disputed issue of material fact and could not be resolved on summary judgment.
- The evidence created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the patrons' intoxication was a proximate cause of Henson's injury; intoxication need only be a substantial factor and need not be the sole cause.
Key quotations
“We see no good reason to extend the doctrine to preclude liability for injuries arising out of the operation and patronage of bars.” (191)
“The element of foreseeability must therefore be decided by the fact-finder.” (193)
“Therefore, summary judgment on the dram-shop claim was improper.” (194)
Factual background
Maxwell Henson, an off-duty employee of Uptown Drink, was fatally injured while helping bar employees eject two visibly intoxicated and aggressive patrons. Before the incident, the patrons had consumed substantial amounts of alcohol, displayed impaired balance and behavior, and interacted problematically with other patrons and bar employees. During the ejection, Henson and others fell near the bar's entrance, causing Henson to suffer a fatal traumatic brain injury.
Procedural history
Henson's family sued Uptown Drink for innkeeper negligence and violation of the Minnesota Civil Damages Act. The district court initially granted summary judgment based on the Workers' Compensation Act; the court of appeals reversed that ruling. On remand, the district court again granted summary judgment, concluding that implied primary assumption of risk barred the negligence claim and that intoxication was not a proximate cause of Henson's injury for purposes of the dram-shop claim. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, and the Minnesota Supreme Court affirmed.
Remand instructions
The court affirmed the court of appeals' reversal and remand, leaving the innkeeper-negligence foreseeability issue and dram-shop proximate-cause issue for determination by the fact-finder.