587


SIGNIFICANT SUPREME COURT DECISIONS


Liability for Providing Liquor - Social Hosts
  In Koback v. Crook, 123 Wis. 2d 259 (1985). the Supreme Court was faced
with the question of
whether a third party, injured by an intoxicated driver, has a cause of action
for negligence
against the social hosts who provided alcohol to the minor driver. In an
extension of its decision
in Sorenson v. Jarvis, 119 Wis. 2d 627 (1984). the Court held that a social
host who serves intoxi-
cating beverages to a minor is liable for injuries caused to third parties,
to the extent that furnish-
ing alcohol was a substantial factor in causing the injuries.
  The facts in Koback were similar to those in Sorenson except that the defendants
in Koback
were social hosts who furnished the minor with alcohol, rather than vendors
who sold alcohol to
minors. The Court decided that this was not a legally relevant difference,
and ruled that the
rationale of Sorenson should apply.
   The defendants in Koback argued that there is a special fiduciary relationship
between a li-
censed liquor dealer and a customer, such that the seller owes the customer
a duty of ordinary
care and may be held liable for neglecting that duty. Defendants further
contended that since
liability in Sorenson rested upon this fiduciary relationship, which they
claimed was absent in the
social host and guest relationship, liability should not attach to social
hosts. The court dis-
agreed, stating that the liability of the retail seller in Sorenson was based
on negligent conduct in
respect to a minor and was not the result of a fiduciary relationship. The
Court explained that
the statutory prohibitions against selling liquor to minors, upon which negligence
per se (in fact)
was founded in Sorenson, apply equally to the furnishing of liquor to a minor
in Koback. Thus,
given the negligent conduct of the social hosts toward a minor, the common
law cause of action
for negligence established in Sorenson applies to the social hosts in Koback.
   The Court also rejected the defendants' argument that social hosts should
be treated differ-
 ently than vendors because social hosts do not have the ability to pass
on the costs of liability as a
 business expense. The Court stated that the defendants' homeowners liability
policy covered the
 claim and that tort law should be used to spread the risk over a large segment
of society through
 insurance.

 Gifts - Recovery of Engagement Ring
   In Brown v. Thomas, 127 Wis. 2d 318 (1985), the Court of Appeals examined
the phenomenon
 of the engagement ring. The Court faced the question of whether an engagement
ring should be
 returned if the engagement is broken.
   The opinion involved a review of both case law and courtship practices.
The facts of the case
 were straightforward. When J. Dennis Brown and Terry Thomas became engaged
to be mar-
 ried, Brown gave Thomas an engagement ring. Subsequently, the engagement
was terminated
 and Brown sued Thomas to get the ring back. Each party alleged that the
other broke off the
 engagement.
    At the Circuit Court level, the Court held that Wisconsin statutes prohibited
lawsuits based on
 breach of contract to marry, unless some property was obtained by fraud.
Finding no fraud in
 this case, the Circuit Court dismissed Brown's claim.
    On appeal, the Court of Appeals interpreted the Wisconsin statutes differently.
The Court
  noted the distinction between conditional and absolute gifts. The Court
felt that the conditional
  gift theory was particularly appropriate in this case, finding marriage
to be an implied condition
  of the gift of an engagement ring.
    The next question was whether the issue of fault should be relevant.
Should the return of the
  ring depend on the reasons or lack of reasons for ending the engagement?
The Court noted that
  most other jurisdictions would allow recovery only if the party seeking
the return of the ring did
  not unjustifiably break the engagement. The Court decided not to use this
approach, stating:
         "As the record of this two-day jury trial demonstrates, the
answer to the multiple
      question 'who broke off the engagement, when, and was he/she justified?'
is often lost in
      the murky depths of contradictory, acrimonious, and largely irrelevant
testimony by
      disappointed couples, their relatives and friends." (page 328)

  The Court of Appeals decided it was better to view the question of guilt
or fault in breaking off
  the engagement as being irrelevant. This seemed to fit with the public
policy contained in the
  state's no fault divorce law. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment
of the Circuit Court.