|
No. 127703 127704
| Lawrence Reed, Personal Representative |
|
John D. Pirich |
| of the Estate of Lance Nathan Reed, |
|
Andrea L. Hansen |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Jackson-Schmucker, C.) |
|
|
| Frederick Breton, Personal Representative |
|
|
| of the Estate of Curtis J. Breton, and HB Resort |
|
|
| Enterprises, Inc., a/k/a Eagles Nest, |
|
|
Defendants, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Beach Bar, Inc., a/k/a Beach Bar, |
|
Megan K. Cavanagh |
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| ------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| James Kuenner, Personal Representative |
|
|
| of the Estate of Adam W. Kuenner, |
|
|
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
vs (Appeal from Ct of Appeals)
|
|
|
(Jackson-Schmucker, C.) |
|
|
| Frederick Breton, Personal Representative |
|
|
|
of the Estate of Curtis J. Breton, and HB Resort |
|
|
| Enterprises, Inc., a/k/a Eagles Nest, |
|
|
Defendants, |
|
|
| and |
|
|
| Beach Bar, Inc., a/k/a Beach Bar, |
|
|
Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| _________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellees' Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Background
After spending several hours at the Beach Bar, Curtis Breton apparently fell asleep while driving and collided head-on at 100 miles per hour with a vehicle occupied by Adam Kuenner and Lance Reed. All three men died. It was later determined that Breton’s blood alcohol level was 0.215 percent at the time of the accident; testimony indicated that Breton had been drinking much of the day and that the Beach Bar was not the last place to serve him. The plaintiffs, the personal representatives of Kuenner and Reed, filed separate lawsuits against Beach Bar, alleging that the bar was negligent for selling intoxicating liquor to a “visibly intoxicated person” in violation of MCL 436.1801(3). The trial court consolidated the cases. Beach Bar asked the trial court to dismiss both lawsuits, arguing that, because the bar was not the last establishment to serve Breton, it was entitled to a rebuttable presumption against liability under MCL 436.1808(8). Beach Bar argued that plaintiffs could not overcome the presumption of nonliability because they had no evidence from any of the witnesses who saw Breton that day that Breton was “visibly intoxicated” while at Beach Bar. In response, the plaintiffs presented the reports of two expert witness toxicologists who concluded that, given the concentration of alcohol in Breton’s system, he must have been visibly intoxicated. The trial court granted the bar’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. The trial court held that the plaintiffs failed to present positive, unequivocal, strong and credible evidence that Breton was visibly intoxicated when he was served at Beach Bar. The plaintiffs appealed and, in a published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for trial. The plaintiffs only needed to present competent and credible evidence that it was more probable than not that Breton was visibly intoxicated when he was served at Beach Bar, the Court of Appeals concluded. The appellate court found that the plaintiffs’ expert testimony met this standard. Beach Bar appeals.
Top of Page
|
