Supreme Court Of Iowa Affirms Jury Verdict Against Riverboat Casino Pursuant To Iowa's Dram Shop Statute.
SHELLEY A. HORAK, Administrator of the Estate of Leticia B. Morales, and ANTONIA RAMONA HOLGUIN, FRANCISCO HOLGUIN MORALES, and MARC ANTHONY ABNEY, Appellees, vs. ARGOSY GAMING CO. d/b/a BELLE CASINO OF SIOUX CITY, IOWA, Appellant.
No. 199 / 99-1941
SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
2002 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 147
July 17, 2002, Filed
PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Dewie J. Gaul, Judge. Riverboat casino challenges adverse rulings concerning admiralty law, evidentiary objections and sufficiency of evidence to support jury's verdict in action brought under Iowa's dram shop statute.
DISPOSITION: Affirmed.
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff administrator and children sued defendant riverboat casino under the Dram Shop Act, specifically Iowa Code § 123.92 (1999), for the death of their decedent. The casino answered with a general denial and an affirmative defense denying proximate cause. The Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, after a jury trial, awarded the children consortium damages of $1,250,000. The casino appealed.
OVERVIEW: A mother dropped her daughter off at a birthday party and went with two men to the casino. After some hours, the casino kicked her out for drunkenness. The men said they would drive her home but that did not happen. The car missed a turn and flipped over. An off-duty officer witnessed the crash and found her body thrown from the car, topless and wrapped in a blanket similar to those from a nearby hotel. The district court refused to apply federal admiralty law. The Supreme Court found that because there was no federal maritime dram shop law, federal preemption principles did not apply. Although the administrator and children did not produce the actual drink servers at trial, the evidence was sufficient. The decedent's blood alcohol count had been 0.250. The trial court's limine ruling against the evidence of undress was proper given the speculativeness of any sexual assault theory and prejudice to the administrator and children. As to the damage awards, the decedent's excessive partying on the night in question did not accurately reflect her usual devotion as a parent.
OUTCOME: The judgment was affirmed.
