Sacramento Family Loses Children In Fatal DUI Car Accident, Part 4 of 8

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the participants in this automobile accident/personal injury case and its proceedings.)

The only case the Greenes have cited in opposition to Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action- special relationship is Elizarraras v. L.A. Private Security Services, Inc. (108 Cal.App.4th 237 (2003)) (L.A. Private Security Services, Inc. was hired by a restaurant as security guards and their job responsibility did not include preventing patrons from drinking and driving, thus they had no special duty of care to prevent minors from consuming alcoholic beverages as its job responsibility is not equivalent to a legal duty of care to underage patrons to prevent them from drinking or driving while intoxicated ).

Defendants’ demurrer contains pages of boilerplate information about the legislative history, definitions and interpretation of the 1978 amendments to Civ. Code Sec. 1714 and B & P Code Secs.25602 and 25602.1. Although this historical information may be interesting, it does not relate to the particular facts alleged in Plaintiff’s TAC, the First and Second Causes of Action and the special relationship that existed between the Greenes and Paul.

Defendants’ reliance on these cases is misguided and can be distinguished both factually and legally. Defendant El Mexicano does not dispute liability for serving alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor, specifically Danny Smith, age 18, the evening of December 19 and early morning of December 20, 2006 in violation of B & P Sec.25602.1.

Strang v. Cabrol 37 Cal.3d 720 (1984) can be distinguished as this case involved liquor licensees ( purveyors ) who sold alcoholic beverages to minors and knew or should have known that minors would become intoxicated if they were furnished alcoholic beverages, and that such minors, after becoming intoxicated would drive a vehicle. Our California Supreme Court held that the licensees in Strang were immune from liability for furnishing alcohol to a minor pursuant to Civ. Code Sec. 1714, B & P Code Secs.25602 and 25602.1. Plaintiff has never alleged that the Greenes were liquor licensees. (See Part 5 of 8.)

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.

Contact Information