Sanchez-Ravuelta v. Yavapai County, No. 2 CA-CV 2023-0059 (App. Div. II, April 3, 2024) (J. Eckerstrom) https://www.appeals2.az.gov/decisions/CV20230059Opinion.pdf

LAWSUIT AGAINST GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY IN ARIZONA MUST BE PRECEDED BY A TIMELY NOTICE OF CLAIM WHICH MUST SET FORTH FACTS SUFFICIENT TO INFORM PUBLIC ENTITY OF BASIS OF CLAIMED LIABILITY/STATE STATUTES AND ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS CREATE DUTY OF STATE NOT TO COMMIT GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN ISSUING LIQUOR LICENSE RESULTING IN INJURY BY A DRUNK DRIVER

Plaintiffs sued Yavapai County, the State of Arizona and the Town of Dewey-Humboldt for their serious personal injuries after being struck by a drunk driver (blew a 3.0). They alleged the intersection where the collision occurred was unreasonably dangerous, the state had failed to enforce the drunk driver's suspended license and that the state failed to take reasonable steps to prevent Billy Jack's Bar from creating “hazardous conditions” by overserving customers like the drunk driver. The trial court granted defendants' motions to dismiss on the basis plaintiffs' Notice of Claim did not set forth sufficient facts to support any of plaintiffs' claims. The trial court further found the state owed no duty to “prevent drunk drivers from causing collisions.”  Plaintiff appealed to the Arizona Court of Appeals which dismissed in part, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded. 

In Arizona plaintiffs wishing to sue the government, be it the state, county, or city, must first serve a Notice of Claim upon each governmental entity which “shall contain facts sufficient to permit the public entity . . . to understand the basis on which liability is claimed,' as well as (2) ‘a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount.'” Here the Plaintiffs' Notice of Claim covered in detail their injuries, emotional distress and medical expenses and demanded a sum certain of $385 million. However, while the Notice of Claim did allege negligence by the state in issuing Billy Jack's a liquor license, it made no allegations against any of the defendants regarding the intersection, or the failure to enforce the drunk driver's suspended license. The absence of any allegations regarding any fault on the defendants beyond the issuance of the liquor license totally fails to allow the public entities here to “understand the basis of liability” regarding a claimed defective intersection and a failed effort to enforce a driver's license suspension.

Accordingly, all of plaintiffs' claims here are properly dismissed due to an insufficient Notice of Claim, except the claim of negligence in the issuance a liquor license to Billy Jack.  As to this claim:

In short, this statutory scheme, which created the Department

and provided its authority, expressly identified the overservice of patrons

as among the risks to the general public that it sought to prevent.

Conversely, those potentially harmed by an overserved patron represent

the precise class of persons those statutes were designed to protect. See Del

E. Webb Corp. v. Superior Court, 151 Ariz. 164, 169 (1986) (statutes prohibiting

sale of alcohol to intoxicated persons “perhaps primarily . . . intended to

protect the general public”). Thus, under the criteria for the statutory

creation of a duty articulated by our supreme court, the Department had a

duty to plaintiffs in these circumstances  .  .  .  . Specifically, our legislature

has provided that our state agencies, like the Department, can be sued

for the “issuance of . . . any permit, license, certificate, approval, order

or similar authorization” provided the plaintiff can show “gross negligence.”

A.R.S. § 12-820.02(A)(5).

The town's cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction is denied as plaintiffs properly appealed timely from the appropriate court order (of which there were several) and the trial court's granting of defendants' motions to dismiss are affirmed excepting the dismissal of the claim against the state for negligently issuing a license. The case is remanded for further proceedings on that last claim.