Dram Shop

Submitted by: Submitted by

Views: 595

Words: 382

Pages: 2

Category: Business and Industry

Date Submitted: 03/01/2012 12:54 AM

Report This Essay

STYLE: Soerries v. Dancause

COURT: Court of Appeals of Georgia

DATE: March 2, 2001

CITATION: 248 Ga. App. 374; 546 S.E.2d 356; 2001 Ga. App. LEXIS 270; 2001 Fulton

County D. Rep. 987

ISSUE: Does the owner of a corporation be held liability for its injured partner when the owner commingles his/her individual and corporate assets?

FACT: 18 years old girl entered the Chickasaw Club without being checked for identification. She got drunk and drove and be killed by car accident. Her stepfather sued Soerries, the owner of the club, liable for the cost of the car and punitive damages. The lower court held Soerries personal liability for the damage. Soerries files a motion of appeal defended himself by saying that owner of corporation can’t be liable for corporation act unless plaintiff needs to prove the defendant disregarded the separateness of legal entity. Facts showed that Soerries often paid his employees at the club “under the table” and did not report to the company’s book. He claimed that he paid his employees out of his personal pocket. Also, Soerries paid his mortgage notes for the club’s cash revenue. He reported that he paid 43,000 in rent in 1996, however, in his tax return showed that he only paid $34,173 in rent.

HOLDING: Yes Soerries commingled his individual and corporate assets. He was personally assumed liable for corporate finance.

LAW: Abbott Foods of Ga. v. Elberton Poultry Co.: evidences to determine sole stockholder uses corporate funds as instrumentality for personal affairs.

Sheppard v. Tribble Heating &c.: sole stockholder uses corporate funds to pay for personal loans including mortgage notes.

Garrett v. Women's Health Care &c.: rule of stockholder loaned the corporate funds.

Abbott Foods of Ga. v. Elberton Poultry Co.: explains where separate personalities of corporation and its owner no longer exists.

J-Mart Jewelry Outlets v. Standard Design: whether evidence is sufficient for court to pierce corporate

veil....