California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Trenier v. California Investment & Development Corp., 105 Cal.App.3d 44, 164 Cal.Rptr. 156 (Cal. App. 1980):
In this area, there are actually only two cases, both being wrongful death cases. The first is Paula v. Gagnon (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 680, 146 Cal.Rptr. 702. There decedent went to three taverns, consumed at least enough alcohol to have had a .19 percent blood alcohol reading, and killed himself in a single car accident on his way home. Defendants moved for summary judgment and were successful in the trial court, but fared less well on appeal. The appellate decision was, that the question of obvious intoxication was one of fact, as was the question of willful misconduct. Indeed, that court stated that "(b)ecause we have concluded that in the present procedural situation the complaint does not reveal willful misconduct as a matter of law, we need not decide whether such a showing would bar recovery by appellants." (Paula v. Gagnon, supra, 81 Cal.App.3d at p. 685, 146 Cal.Rptr. at p. 705, emphasis added.)
In Sissle v. Stefenoni (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 633, 152 Cal.Rptr. 56, that very question was presented, and a judgment of dismissal like one in the instant case (after general demurrer sustained without leave to amend) was affirmed by a different division of the same appellate court. There, as here, it was alleged that the drinking driver-to-be was served alcohol in a bar while already obviously intoxicated, and that the [105 Cal.App.3d 48] bar personnel knew he would leave there and drive his car. He did get in his car while intoxicated, drove on the wrong side of a highway, and was killed in an automobile accident. The court held that these allegations ultimately alleged that the decedent had violated sections 23102(a) and 21650 of the Vehicle Code (drunk driving and driving on the wrong side of the highway). "These actions were necessarily in disregard of the rights and safety of others. Decedent was guilty of willful misconduct barring the present action." (Sissle v. Stefenoni, supra, at p. 636, 152 Cal.Rptr., at p. 57.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.