Court Briefs                                                     

On suing the seller of drinks
A person injured by a drunk may, in some cases, sue the seller of the drinks. The Illinois Supreme Court pointed out that lower court decisions have been inconsistent, but that many have tended to favor the seller.

In this case, two couples spent the evening together, during which one of the men drank a large number of boilermakers. He bought almost all of the drinks for the party. Later, in an argument, he beat up the other man, who sued the bar as well as his attacker.

Illinois law allows limited action against a dramshop where someone got drunk. The dramshop can defend itself against a suit by a person injured by an inebriate by claiming that person's complicity. Where the plaintiffs claim is in dispute or capable of several interpretations, the matter should be tried, according to this decision. The court warned against placing too much reliance on a single fact (such as the plaintiffs willing accompaniment on a bar crawl).

The Supreme Court here agreed with lower courts' verdicts in favor of the plaintiff. Justice Mary Ann McMorrow wrote for the majority in Walter v Carriage House Hotels Inc. (Docket No. 75129).

Miranda must be reissued
Police officers might be well-advised to issue Miranda warnings every time they talk to a suspect. That fact was underlined in a recent decision by the Illinois Supreme Court.

A 16-year-old showed up at the station house with his father and his attorney because he knew that police wanted to question him about a shooting. After being "mirandized," he indicated that he only wished to communicate through his attorney. After the attorney left, the suspect was identified in a lineup, at which time he asked police "What happened?" and "What happens now?"

In another interview, police repeated the warnings, got his acknowledgement of understanding and questioned him about a different, fatal shooting. He made statements that were used during the trial. He then appealed on grounds that he had been improperly questioned.

The high court cited a U.S. Supreme Court case as precedent, under which Miranda rights are waived if the suspect initiates conversation with police in a manner showing "willingness and a desire for a generalized discussion about the investigation."

The Illinois court held here that the suspect's questions did not indicate the requisite willingness for generalized discussion. To hold otherwise "would render virtually any remark by a defendant, no matter how offhand or superficial, susceptible of interpretation as an invitation to discuss his case in depth." Even if the suspect had indicated willingness to talk about the case, the court said, the officer should have restated the warnings.

Justice Moses W. Harrison II wrote for the majority in People v Olivera (Docket No.75598).