Wilda v. Roe

"ORS 471.565(1) does not prohibit a patron's claim that seeks contribution for payment of the damages of the plaintiff injured by the intoxicated patron."

Defendant Patron appealed from a limited judgment that dismissed his third-party complaint that sought to include in the suit two taverns into an action against Defendant Patron for Plaintiff's personal injuries. Defendant assigned error to the trial courts dismissal of the motion to the third-party action. On appeal, Defendant Patron argued that ORS 471.565(1) was intended to prevent an intoxicated patron from bringing a claim against a tavern for the patron's own injuries and was not intended to prohibit the patron from impleading taverns to contribute to paying damages for an innocent person injured by an intoxicated patron. In response, Tavern Defendants argued that ORS 471.565(1) should be interpreted broadly and prohibits any cause of action against a server for over-service of a patron. "ORS 471.565(1) does not prohibit a patron's claim that seeks contribution for payment of the damages of the plaintiff injured by the intoxicated patron." The Court of Appeals held that the legislature did not intend for the statute to bar a defendant patron from including a tavern in an action for plaintiff's injuries. Reversed and remanded.