A tavern sold liquor to a drunken patron who was subsequently involved as a driver in a fatal motor vehicle collision.The plaintiff was rendered a quadriplegic as a result.Prevailing precedent in this jurisdiction provides that the tavern does not owe a duty to third party motorists to guard against injuries caused by patrons who become intoxicated at their place of business.If the plaintiff appeals the trial court's granting of the defendant tavern's motion to dismiss, could the state supreme court overrule the precedent and recognize the tavern's responsibility and liability for the plaintiff's injuries?

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

While the doctrine of stare decisis generally requires following precedent, there are exceptions when it is no longer appropriate due to changing economic, political, and social conditions. In this case, the plaintiff's catastrophic injuries could be seen as a significant change that would warrant reexamining the precedent that taverns do not owe a duty to third-party motorists. It would be up to the state supreme court to decide if these changes justify overruling the existing precedent.

A Tavern Sold Liquor to a Drunken Patron Who Was