Bars and restaurants have no legal responsibility to stop drunken patrons from driving, the state Court of Appeals said in a decision published Tuesday.
The decision affirms a ruling in a Durham lawsuit in which a widow sued the restaurant that served the man who killed her husband in a drunken-driving crash. A jury found in 2004 that the bartender at Torero's on Guess Road had a duty to stop William S. Terry from driving home after he spent a night drinking at the bar in 1997.
Terry left the restaurant and drove about a mile before his vehicle crossed the center line and collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Michael Hall, who was killed. His wife, Theresa Hall, was injured.
Terry was convicted of involuntary manslaughter, a felony. Hall's lawsuit originally named Terry as well as the restaurant. Terry settled out of court, and the case against Torero's went forward.
In 2004, a jury awarded Hall $1.2 million in damages after finding that someone at the restaurant should have stopped Terry from driving. But Superior Court Judge Abraham P. Jones set the order aside, finding that the law didn't support it.
The judge was right, the appeals court found.
Hall's attorneys plan to ask the state Supreme Court to review the case. It is not just about money, said Jay Ferguson, one of her attorneys. Hall wants to change the law.
"I think the Court of Appeals had a good opportunity to protect the citizens on our roadways but decided that bars have no responsibility for allowing intoxicated customers to drive away," Ferguson said.
The case has been before a jury twice. In 2000, a jury found that the bartender did not knowingly serve Terry while he was intoxicated, which is against the law. But that jury deadlocked on the question of whether she should have stopped Terry from driving.
The law doesn't require it specifically, but the bar's policy, spelled out in a written manual, did. The bartender testified that according to the policy, which was based on a guide produced by the state, after customers have become intoxicated, a bartender is "required to take their drink away, to make sure they have a safe way home, and to make sure that they will be fine."
In the court's decision, Judge Joseph R. John Sr. wrote that making that policy legally binding would punish a business for caring about safety. Any business with a parking lot would have to monitor customers to see whether they could drive away safely.
Attorneys for the restaurant could not be reached Tuesday.
The opinion is careful to point out the difficulty of the case.
"A young father was tragically killed and his wife grievously injured," John wrote. "While acutely aware of the loss and harm endured by the plaintiffs and similarly cognizant of the carnage which drunken drivers wreak upon the roadways of this state and nation ... we have been obligated in this matter, as in any, to perform our duty as judges ... to rule upon questions of law and not to legislate."
