Abstract
This Note reviews the development of dramshop liability in Arizona and the motives behind abrogating the former rule of non-liability. The Note examines two recent cases that challenged the constitutionality of the subsequent dramshop legislation. Specifically, it analyzes the Arizona Supreme Court's opinion in Schwab v. Matley, which held that a statute prohibiting bar patrons from bringing a dramshop claim violated the Arizona Constitution. The Note also examines Bruce v. Chas Roberts Air Conditioning, Inc., wherein the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of a statute that immunizes social hosts from dramshop liability. Finally, the soundness of each of these recent dramshop cases is considered in light of the special protections found in the Arizona Constitution.
How to Cite
33 Ariz. L. Rev. 955 (1991)
3
Views
3
Downloads