Page:Shannon v. Wilson.pdf/2

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
144
Shannon v. Wilson
Cite as 329 Ark. 143 (1997)
[329


one; the mere fact that other causes intervene between the original act of negligence and the injury for which recovery is sought is not sufficient to relieve the original actor of liability if the injury is the natural and probable consequence of the original negligent act or omission and is such as might reasonably have been foreseen as probable; the original act or omission is not eliminated as a proximate cause by an intervening cause unless the latter is of itself sufficient to stand as the cause of the injury; the intervening cause must be such that the injury would not have been suffered except for the act, conduct, or effect of the intervening agent totally independent of the acts or omission constituting the primary negligence.

  1. INTOXICATING LIQUORS—SELLING OF ALCOHOL MAY BE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF INJURIES ALONG WITH PROXIMATE CAUSE OF CONSUMPTION—INJURY-PRODUCING BEHAVIOR IS REASONABLY FORESEEABLE.—The selling of alcohol may be a proximate cause of injuries along with the proximate cause of the consumption; the two are not mutually exclusive; selling alcohol to minors can be a proximate cause because the consumption, resulting intoxication, and injury-producing behavior is reasonably foreseeable.
  2. NEGLIGENCE—PROOF REQUIRED FOR—DUTY DISCUSSED.—In order to prove negligence, there must be a failure to exercise proper care in the performance of a legal duty that the defendant owed the plaintiff under the surrounding circumstances; duty is a concept that arises out of the recognition that relations between individuals may impose upon one a legal obligation for the other.
  3. INTOXICATING LIQUORS—SELLER'S DUTY TO ACT WITH CARE WHEN SELLING LIQUOR TO PATRONS FOUND IN AFFIRMATIVE REQUIREMENTS OF STATUTES—PUBIC POLICY OF STATE TO PROTECT MINORS FROM ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION.—The legislature's determination that it is the public policy of the State of Arkansas to protect minors as a special class of citizens from the adverse consequences of alcohol consumption is clear from the affirmative requirements of the statutes enacted by it; the statutes establish an affirmative duty for alcoholic-beverage license holders to safeguard against minors purchasing alcohol; these statutes serve to regulate the liquor industry and to promote the safety of the citizenry as a whole; the statutes establishing affirmative obligations upon license holders authorized to sell alcohol and the statute classifying as a felony the criminal act of selling or furnishing alcohol to minors for monetary gain create a duty for licensees to exercise a high standard of care for the protection of minors; a breach of this duty can lead to a suit for negligence.