Westbrook v. Miller

The Legislature, in authorizing the recovery of damages in a civil action under the liquor tax law, created a cause of action for the protection of the dependent and helpless which was unknown at the common law. Volans v. Owen, 74 N. Y. 530 , 30 Am. Rep. 337 ; Quinlan v. Welch, 141 N. Y. 158 , 36 N. E. 12 . The right to maintain such an action cannot be extended beyond the terms of the statute, construed in view of the evil to be remedied and the object to be attained. The complaint in this action does not allege or claim that the plaintiff has suffered damage by reason of the intoxication of her son. The facts stated in the complaint are not sufficient to constitute a cause of action under section 39 of the liquor tax law (chapter 112, p. 79, Laws 1896). We have not had our attention called to any other statute authorizing the recovery of damages in a civil action for selling or giving away intoxicating liquors. Section 28, p. 415, c. 628, of the Laws of 1857, making any- person, who shall sell strong or spirituous liquors or wines to any of the individuals to whom it is declared by the acf to be unlawful to make such sale, liable for all damages' which may be sustained in consequence of such sale to any individual sustaining such

The complaint alleges that the defendant did “unlawfully sell to, give to, and permit her said son to have and to drink and carry away with him in bottles and otherwise, on and from said premises of defendant, intoxicating liquors, whisky, wine, and beer.” As we have shown, no right pf action, except for a penalty as stated, is given by statute for such unlawful sales and gifts. The plaintiff’s action is not authorized by statute, and it cannot be maintained by her unless she has sustained an injury recognized by the common law. Loss of services to which a parent is entitled from a child is the basis of a cause of action at common law. Lawyer v. Fritcher, 130 N. Y. 239 , 29 N. E. 267 , 14 L. R. A. 700 , 27 Am. St. Rep. 521 . It is not alleged that plaintiff’s son was ever intoxicated or ill, or in any way affected so as to interfere with the performance of such services as the plaintiff or his father were entitled to from him. The sales and gifts of liquors are charged as wrongful and unlawful. As plaintiff’s son was under 18 years of age, such sales and gifts were wrongful and unlawful as a. matter of law. There are no allegations in the complaint that the defendant wrongfully or unlawfully or otherwise requested, solicited, or induced the plaintiff’s son to leave his home and spend his time and earnings at the defendant’s place of business. The mere fact that a child voluntarily spends some portion of his time at the residence or place of business of another cannot be a sufficient basis for an action by a parent for loss of services and injury to the child’s morals. If the defendant by acts or words solicited and enticed the plaintiff's son from his home, and deprived his parents either wholly or partially of his services, or if special circumstances exist which entitle the plaintiff or her husband to damages from the defendant, such acts, words, or special circumstances should have been alleged in her complaint. If the plaintiff’s claim rests solely upon the alleged fact that intoxicating liquors-were sold to the son contrary to the provisions of the liquor tax law, civil penalties and criminal punishment can be recovered or imposed in. the manner provided by the statute.

For the reasons stated, the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and the order should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint granted. All concur.