CIVIL DAMAGE ACTS. Acts Passed in many of the United States which provide an action for damages against a vender of intoxicating liquors, on behalf of the wife or family of a person who has sustained injuries by reason of his intoxication. Dice v. Sherberneau, 152 Mich. 601, 116 N. W. 416, 16 L. R. A. (N. S.) 765; Bistline v. Ney Bros., 134 Ia. 172, 111 N. W. 422, 13 L. R. A. (N. S.) 1158, 13 Ann. Cas. 196.
Such an act, even if it allows an action against the owner of the property where the liquor was sold, without evidence that he authorized the sale, is constitutional; Bertholf v. O'Reilly, 74 N. Y. 509, 30 Am. Rep. 323. See, also, Bedore v. Newton, 54 N. H. 117; Moran v. Goodwin, 130 Mass. 158, 39 Am. Rep. 443; Wightman v. Devere, 33 Wis. 570; Stanton v. Simpson; 48 Vt. 628. Where the owner of a building had no knowl edge as to how his premises were used, he is nevertheless liable where his agent rents it for the sale of intoxicating liquors; Rail v: Germain, 131 N. Y. 536, 30 N. E. 591. See seedy v. Howe, 72 Ill. 133. The act in New York creates a new right of action, vit., for injfiry to the "means of support;" it is not necessary that the injury should be one remediable at common law; Volans v. Owen, 74 N. Y. 526, 30 Am. Rep. 337. In jury to means of support is not necessarily deprivation of the bare necessities of life, but any substantial subtraction from the maintenance suitable to the man's business and condition of life ; Herring v. Ervin, 48
Ill. App. 369. The Indiana act is constitu tional, even though the liquor-seller was li censed ; Horning v. Wendell, 57 Ind. 171. So in Kehrig v. Peters, 41 Mich. 475, 2 N. W. 801. If the death of the husband can be traced to an intervening cause, the liquor seller is not liable ; Schmidt v. Mitchell, 84 195, 25 Am. Rep. 446; Collier v. Early, 54 Ind. 559. Intoxication must be shown to have been the proximate cause of the injury; Beem v. Chestnut, 120 Ind. 390, 22 N. E. 303. Damages for Injuries resulting in death cannot be recovered; Kirchner v. Myers, 35 Ohio St. 85, 35 Am. Rep. 598, 601; contra, Roose v. Perkins, 9 Neb. 304, 2 N. W. 715, 31 Am. Rep. 409; Hayes v. Phelan, 4 Hun (N. Y.) 733; Mead v. Stratton, 87 N. Y. 493, 41 Am. Rep. 386; Flynn v. Fogarty, 106 Ill. 263; Bedore v. Newton, 54 N. H. 117; Rafferty v. Buckman, 46 Ia. 195; but see Jackson v. Brookins, 5 Hun (N. Y.) 530; Davies v. Mc Knight, 146 Pa. 610, 23 Atl. 320. In some states exemplary damages can be recovered ; Weitz v. Ewen, 50 Ia. 34; Gilmore v. Math ews, 67 Me. 517; Bean v. Green, 33 Ohio St. 444; contra, Ward v. Thompson, 48 Ia. 588. The fact that the wife had bought liquor from the defendant under compulsion, or In order to keep her husband at home, does not defeat her right; id.