Civil Damage Acts

A name given to statutes rendering the seller of intoxicating liquors civilly liable to the wife or family of a purchaser of liquor for damage

Acts passed in many of the United States which provide an action for damages against a vender of intoxicating liquors, on behalf of the wife or family of a person who has sustained injuries by reason of his intoxication. Dice v. Sherbemeau, 152 Mich. 601, 116 N. W. 416, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 765: Bistline v. Ney Bros., 134 la. 172, 111 N. W. 422, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 115S, 13 Ann. Cas. 196. Such an act, even if it allows an action against the owner of the property where the liquor was sold, without evidence that he authorized the sale, is constitutional; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509, 30 Am. Rep. 323. See, also, Bedore v. Newton, 54 N. H. 117; Moran v. Goodwin, 130 Mass. 158, 39 Am. Rep. 443; Wightman v. Devere, 33 Wis. 570; Stanton v. Simpson, 48 Vt. 62S. Where the owner of a building had no knowledge as to how his premises were used, he is nevertheless liable where his agent rents it for the sale of intoxicating liquors; Hall v. Germain, 131 N. Y. 536, 30 N. E. 591. See Keedy v. Howe, 72 111. 133. The act It is not necessary that the injury should be one remediable at common law; Volans v. Owen, 74 N. Y. 526, ^0 Am. Rep. 337. Injury to means of support is not necessarily deprivation of the bare necessities of life, but any substantial subtraction from the maintenance suitable to the man's business and condition of life; Herring v. Ervin. -is 111. App. 369. The Indiana act Is constitutional, even though the liquor-seller was licensed; Horning v. Wendell, 57 lud. 171. So in Kehrig v. Peters, 41 Mich. 475, 2 X. W.

Acts passed in many of the United States which provide an action for damages ayainsta vendor of intoxicating liquors, (and, in some cases, against his lessor,) on behalf of the wife or family of a person who has sustained injuries by reason of his intoxicat‘on.