California Dram Shop Act Applied In The Absence Of A Federal Dram Shop Law. Survival Action And Claim For Punitive Damages Allowed To Proceed Where Non Seaman Killed In Territorial Waters
SERGE VOILLAT and SIMONE VOILLAT, individually and assuccessors-in-interest to LIONEL VOILLAT, Plaintiffs, v. RED AND WHITE FLEET,FISHERMAN'S WHARF BAY CRUISE CORPORATION d/b/a RED AND WHITE FLEET, GOLDEN GATESCENIC STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, LON RICHARDS, LOU'S BLUE SNAX, INC., JOHNNY BRETTand KEITH O'REILLY, both individually and d/b/a "OBLIVION," "OBLIVIONSF," and/or"OBLIVIONSF.COM," SPECIALIZED SECURITY ENTERPRISES, WILLIAM O. MONAGHAN, andDOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants.
No. C 03-3016 MHP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4359
March 18, 2004, Decided
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendants, a cruise ship passenger, cruise ship owners, corporations, and individuals, moved to dismiss plaintiff parents' survival and dram shop liability claims for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, to strike portions of the parents' prayer for relief in a wrongful death and survival action.
OVERVIEW: After their son was killed when he was thrown overboard from a cruise ship by another passenger, the parents brought a wrongful death and survival action against defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the survival and dram shop liability claims for failure to state a claim, or, in the alternative, to strike portions of the parents' prayer for relief. The court found that the parents properly stated a claim for relief under a general maritime survival action. The court further found, however, that California's anti-dram shop provision, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code ยง 25602(b), precluded the parents' dram shop claim. Under California law, the parents failed to state a claim for relief under their claim for improper service of alcohol. Finally, the court found that while the parents were entitled to punitive damages and damages for pre-death pain and suffering, they were not entitled to damages for both loss of support and lost future earning capacity, though they could seek one or the other. As wrongful death beneficiaries, they were entitled to damages for loss of support.
OUTCOME: The court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the parents' survival action. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the parents' claim for improper service of alcohol. The court denied defendants' motion to strike the parents' request for damages for pre-death pain and suffering, damages for lost future earning capacity, and punitive damages.
