A fatal car accident has led to a legal battle, and the Georgia Court of Appeals has sided with two establishments that served alcohol to the driver involved. The court affirmed the lower court’s decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Fish Tale Restaurants, LLC, and RJM Trading, Inc., doing business as Game Time Sports Bar, in a wrongful death case filed by Andria Kendrick, the surviving spouse of K. Chad Kendrick.
The Incident
The case stems from a single-vehicle collision that occurred after Kathleen Arnsdorff, the driver, had been drinking at two different bars. K. Chad Kendrick was a passenger in the truck driven by Arnsdorff when the accident happened. The accident resulted in Kendrick’s death.
Andria Kendrick filed a lawsuit, alleging that the bars, Fish Tale Restaurants and Game Time Sports Bar, were liable under Georgia’s Dram Shop Act. This act holds establishments accountable for injuries or deaths caused by serving alcohol to visibly intoxicated individuals who then drive.
The Dram Shop Act
The Dram Shop Act, codified in OCGA § 51-1-40, outlines the conditions under which a bar or restaurant can be held liable for damages caused by an intoxicated person. The law states that a business is generally not liable for injuries or damages caused by someone they serve alcohol to. However, there are exceptions:
* The establishment knowingly serves alcohol to a person who is “noticeably intoxicated.”
* The establishment knows the person will soon be driving a motor vehicle.
* The serving of alcohol is the “proximate cause” of the injury or damage.
Fish Tales: The First Bar
The court addressed the case against Fish Tale Restaurants first. The court found that there was no evidence that Arnsdorff was “noticeably intoxicated” when she was served at Fish Tales. The court noted that Fish Tales had presented testimony from its employees who interacted with Arnsdorff that night, and they did not believe she was noticeably intoxicated.
The court also found that there was no evidence Fish Tales knew or had reason to believe that Arnsdorff would be driving a vehicle. The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiff, Kendrick, was not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact.
In her argument, Kendrick’s attorney attempted to use the testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Eagerton, a pharmacology and toxicology expert. Dr. Eagerton extrapolated backwards from Arnsdorff’s BAC after the crash to determine her likely BAC at Fish Tales. The court found this was not enough to contradict the direct testimony of the bartenders and other witnesses who said Arnsdorff was not noticeably intoxicated. The court also noted that Dr. Eagerton’s testimony relied on assumptions and that his analysis was not enough to create a genuine issue of material fact.
The court ultimately agreed with the trial court and granted summary judgment to Fish Tales.
Game Time: The Second Bar
The court then turned to the case against Game Time Sports Bar. The court noted that, unlike the Fish Tales case, the expert testimony of Dr. Eagerton did contradict the direct testimony of the bartender, which stated that Arnsdorff seemed “fine” when she ordered a margarita shortly before closing time. Dr. Eagerton testified that at 11:56 p.m., Arnsdorff’s blood alcohol content was over 0.15. At this point, he testified, an individual’s ability to mask or compensate for some of the effects of alcohol “degrades significantly,” such that an observer would have “no doubt” that the person was intoxicated. In light of this conflict, a genuine issue of fact remained as to whether Arnsdorff was noticeably intoxicated when she was served at Game Time.
However, the court ultimately affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Game Time because it found there was no evidence that Game Time knew or should have known that Arnsdorff would be driving a vehicle. The court pointed out that the bartender’s testimony that most customers drive to the bar was not enough to establish the bar’s knowledge. The court also noted there was no evidence that Arnsdorff displayed her car keys or otherwise indicated she would be driving.
The court also addressed the plaintiff’s argument that the court should apply a spoliation presumption based on Game Time’s failure to produce security footage. However, the court found that because the trial court did not rule on the spoliation claim, it could not be used to assert that there were genuine issues of material fact.
The court concluded that because there was no evidence that Game Time knew or should have known that Arnsdorff would be driving, the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.
Key Takeaways
The court’s decision highlights the importance of proving all three elements of the Dram Shop Act to establish liability: noticeable intoxication, knowledge of impending driving, and proximate cause. It also underscores the need for concrete evidence, not just speculation or assumptions, to create a genuine issue of material fact in a summary judgment motion.