WAKULICH V. MRAZ 751 N.E.2d 1 (2001) CASE BRIEF

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.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner