Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

20 Neb. 557

Buckmaster v. McElroy

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided July 15, 1886

Nebraska Supreme Court · decided 1886-07-15

<p>Liquors: petition to recover damages. A petition alleging that the defendant, a licensed saloon keeper, was engaged in the business and traffic of keeping a saloon and selling intoxicating liquors therein, and that the plaintiff went into said .saloon and ' called for whiskey, and in response to said call obtained intoxicating liquor in said saloon, by the drink, which plaintiff drank in said saloon, and thereafter, about evening of said day, started on his journey to his home, which was distant about five miles. That said intoxicating liquor, so obtained in said saloon of defendant, from said defendant, and there drank by plaintiff, greatly affected the nervous system of plaintiff and caused the plaintiff to become and be stupified and unconscious. That said day, evening and night, were very cold, that when in the following morning plaintiff regained his consciousness he was lying out of doors on the ground and both of his legs frozen to such an extent that they had to be amputated and were amputated. That plaintiff is a common laborer, and by the loss of his legs has been permanently incapacitated and deprived from following his occupation, and thereby wholly deprived of the means of livelihood, to his damage, etc. Held, To state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.</p>

Cited in Ballentine's (1916)’s definition of “Remedial statute”

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1886-07-15

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently May 2023

12 state decisions

50188618901900191019201930194019501960197019801990200020102020decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Reese, J.,

¶1dissenting:

¶2I cannot agree to the conclusion reached in this case by the majority of the court. I do not believe it was the intention of the legislature to create a liability in favor of any person who by his own voluntary act contributed to, and in fact caused the injury complained of. While I am in favor of the enactment of such laws as will reduce the evils growing out of the traffic in intoxicating liquors to a minimum, or to destroy them altogether, yet I do not believe a law has yet been enacted which permits an individual, by his own wrong, to create a liability in favor of himself and against those participating with him in the wrong.

/20/neb/557 · .json · Public domain