Wisconsin court finds mother liable for teen's fatal drinking binge.

A woman who bought vodka for her underage son can be held liable for the death of his friend, who drank it and died from alcohol poisoning, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled. The court said the case fit a narrow exception to a state law granting immunity from liability to most "providers" of alcoholic beverages. (Anderson v. Am. Family Mutual Ins. Co., 671 N.W.2d 651 (Wis. 2003).)

In 1999, Mary Anne Brasure bought a 1.75-liter bottle of vodka and left it on her kitchen table with a note reading, "Greg, you owe me $12." Her 19-year-old son Gregory took the bottle to his parents' vacation home, where he spent the weekend with some friends. Among them was Craig Anderson, who was 18 (Wisconsin's legal drinking age is 21). He drank almost the entire bottle and died later that night.

The coroner's report found that alcohol consumption was the primary cause of death; the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel later reported that Anderson's blood-alcohol level was more than four times the legal limit.

Anderson's parents sued Brasure and her husband. They also sued Gregory, claiming that he had been negligent by not monitoring Anderson's drinking and not calling for medical help.

Brasure countered that she was immune from suit under a Wisconsin stature that says "providers" of alcohol--bars, liquor stores, or social hosts--cannot be held liable for a drinker's death because the drinker consumes the alcohol willingly and is solely responsible for his or her conduct and any consequent damage. The trial court agreed that the statute applied to Brasure and granted summary judgment in favor of all three defendants.

But the appellate court noted the statute's exception: "If the provider knew or should have known that the person to whom he was providing the alcohol was under the legal drinking age and the alcohol provided to the underage person is a substantial factor in causing injury to a third party," the immunity is lifted.

For the exception to apply, both conditions must be met. The court found that they were and reversed the summary judgment, although it upheld Gregory's immunity because he provided the alcohol directly to Anderson. The court also found that Gregory owed Anderson no "particular duty of care."

The state supreme court affirmed the appeals court decision, finding that "an underage drinker who is injured or dies as a result of the consumption of alcohol that was illegally provided to a companion underage drinker is an injured third party for the purposes of the exception to immunity" under the statute. The court was not swayed by Brasure's argument that because Anderson willingly drank the vodka, he was a "provider" (to himself) and could not also be a third party. It called this reasoning "illogical."

The court's ruling set a precedent by counting Anderson as an injured third party even though his injury was self-inflicted, said Frank Kowalkowski of Green Bay, the lawyer who represented the boy's parents.

"This is the first time that the court recognized an injury that stemmed solely from the alcohol consumption itself," Kowalkowski said. "This isn't a case of someone getting drunk and then hitting an innocent bystander in their car. Even the trial court said that it would have been different if an accident had been involved. But out point was, What's the difference? An accident or alcohol poisoning: Under the terms of the statute, what is the difference? And the [supreme] court agreed."

"It's an odd case," said David Ziemer, a Milwaukee attorney who is news editor of the Wisconsin Law Journal. "It raises all kinds of questions about who is a provider, who is a third party, and also, whether this [scenario] is outside the scope of the statute. After all, you have someone who drank himself to death; he was not in an accident. That's the way the law is usually applied to third parties."

"The case fell right between two cracks," said Kowalkowski. "On the one hand, you have a lot of adults drinking together, they go off and have a car accident: You can't sue the bartender, because you drank willingly, so you're responsible. On the other extreme, you get your 16-year-old kid drunk and give him the car keys, and he kills somebody: Clearly, you're responsible. But this case fell right between the two extremes."

Kowalkowski said the decision will "open doors to other cases" where the injury or damage is caused solely by the alcohol, not a secondary accident. "This ruling is a good signal from the state supreme court. It says, yes, we have broad immunity, but we also have broadened the croup of people who can be held responsible."