WAKULICH V. MRAZ
751 N.E.2d 1 (2001)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Wakulich (P), administratrix, appealed the dismissal for failure to
state a claim of her wrongful death and survival actions against Mraz (D), father and sons,
based on providing alcohol to decedent and failing to exercise due care thereafter.
FACTS: P, administratrix of the estate of decedent Elizabeth Wakulich, brought an action
against Ds. The amended and second amended complaint was dismissed by the trial court for
failing to state a cause of action. P's complaints alleged that on June 15, 1997, and
continuing into the morning of June 16, her daughter, Elizabeth (decedent), was at the home
of Ds, the father and two sons. Elizabeth was 16 years old, Michael was 21 years old, and
Brian was 18 years old. The sons provided her with a quart of an alcoholic beverage known as
Goldschlager. P claims that the sons induced her to drink the entire quart of Goldschlager
through goading, the application of great social pressure, and by offering money. She was to
collect money for consuming the entire bottle of Goldschlager without losing consciousness
or vomiting. D, the father, was present in the home and the complaint alleges that D knew or
should have known that alcoholic beverages were being served to minors in his home.
Elizabeth lost consciousness. The sons placed her in the downstairs family room, where they
observed her vomiting profusely and making 'gurgling' sounds. They later removed her
vomit-saturated blouse and placed a pillow under her head to prevent aspiration. The sons
did not seek medical attention for her and they actually prevented others present in the
home from calling 911 or seeking other medical intervention. D ordered Michael and Brian to
remove her from the home. They then took her to a friend's home. She was eventually taken to
a hospital where she was pronounced dead. The complaint sued under Wrongful Death Act and
the Survival Act. It alleges that the sons were negligent in inducing decedent into drinking
to excess, and they and their father were negligent in failing to act to protect Elizabeth
after voluntarily undertaking her care after she became unconscious. Ds moved for dismissal
on a failure to state a cause of action as there is no common law cause of action for
alcohol liability beyond the Dramshop Act. The motions were granted and P appealed.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment