O'SULLIVAN v. Hemisphere Broad. Corp., 520 N.E.2d 1301 (Mass. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
O'SULLIVAN v. Hemisphere Broad. Corp., 520 N.E.2d 1301 (Mass. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lopresti v. City of Malden (masssuperct, 2001-04-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lopresti v. City of Malden
Mass. Super. Ct. · 2001 · confidence medium
Corp., 402 Mass. 76, 78 (1988).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Lucas v. Leary
Mass. Super. Ct. · 2001 · confidence medium
O’Sullivan v. Hemisphere Broadcasting Corp., 402 Mass. 76, 78 (1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Molinari v. Royal Heights Construction Co.
Mass. Super. Ct. · 1998 · confidence medium
As the harm which safely may be considered foreseeable to the defendant changes with the evolving expectations of a maturing society, so change the “special relationships” upon which the common law will base tort liability for the failure to take affirmative action with reasonable care. 13 See also Davis v. Westwood Group, 420 Mass. 739, 743 (1995); Mosko v. Raytheon Co., 416 Mass. 395, 400-01 (1993); O’Sullivan v. Hemisphere Broadcasting Corp., 402 Mass. 76, 78 (1988); Monadnock Display Fireworks, Inc. v. Andover, 388 Mass. 153, 156 (1983); Schofield v. Merrill, 386 Mass. 244, 246-54 (1…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Toney v. Babcock-Colton Associates
Mass. Super. Ct. · 1997 · confidence medium
Babcock-Colton, in advancing its view that plaintiffs will not be able to demonstrate, at trial, negligence, suggests that, “[t]here is no actionable negligence absent a showing of duty owed by defendant to plaintiff.” O'Sullivan v. Hemisphere Broadcasting Corp., 402 Mass. 76, 78 (1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Whelchel v. General Partners in Independence Mall Group
Mass. Super. Ct. · 1996 · confidence medium
(Emphasis added.) Similarly, in O’Sullivan v. Hemisphere Broadcasting Corp., 402 Mass. 76, 78 (1988), where the court found no negligence on the part of the defendants, the court concluded that the fatal weakness in the plaintiffs case was that the defendants neither controlled the distribution of beer nor the right to do so.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Mosko v. Raytheon Co.
Mass. · 1993 · confidence medium
See Cremins v. Clancy, supra at 293-294 (declining to find duty of care where teenagers shared ownership of alcohol supply); Ulwick v. DeChristopher, supra at 406-407 (declining to find duty of care where defendant hosted “bring your own booze” party); O’Sullivan v. Hemisphere Broadcasting Corp., 402 Mass. 76, 78 (1988) (no liability for commercial defendants sponsoring promotional event due to their lack of control, and lack of right to control, distribution of alcoholic drinks); McGuiggan v. New England Tel. & Tel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Stephens v. Dolitka
Mass. Super. Ct. · 1993 · confidence medium
See Cremins v. Clancy, 415 Mass. 289, 290-97 (1993) (minor defendant who only provided access to premises where consumption of alcoholic beverages took place owed no duty to travelers on the highway to prevent a minor friend from driving intoxicated); O'Gorman v. Antonio Rubinaccio & Sons, Inc., 408 Mass. 758, 760-63 (1990) (holding that bar owner owed no duty to travelers on the highway to prevent bar patron, who was not served alcoholic beverages at bar owner’s premises, from driving away from the premises while visibly intoxicated); O’Sullivan v. Hemisphere Broadcasting Corp., 402 Mass.…
cited Cited as authority (rule) Parent v. Stone & Webster Engineering Corp.
Mass. · 1990 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. O’Sullivan v. Hemisphere Broadcasting Corp., 402 Mass. 76, 78 (1988); J.R.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Kathleen M. O’Sullivan vs. Hemisphere Broadcasting Corporation & Another
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Apr 5, 1988.
520 N.E.2d 1301
Alfred B. Cenedella, III, for the plaintiff., RobertL. Athas for Hemisphere Broadcasting Corporation. Charlene Andros {Michael DeMarco with her) for Miller Brewing Company.
Hennessey, Wilkins, Liacos, Nolan, O'Connor.
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published
Nolan, J.

The plaintiff appeals from the allowance of motions for summary judgment of defendants Hemisphere Broadcasting Corporation (WBCN) and Miller Brewing Company (Miller). [2] We transferred the appeal to this court on our own motion. We affirm.

[*77] In reviewing action on a motion for summary judgment, our inquiry is governed by Mass. R. Civ. P. 56 (c), 365 Mass. 824 (1974), and cases decided under that rule, which provides that a motion for summary judgment should be allowed if a party demonstrates that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that such party is entitled to judgment as matter of law. See Community Nat’l Bank v. Dawes, 369 Mass. 550, 554 (1976).

From the pleadings and affidavits filed by the parties, we learn that the plaintiff, while operating her motor vehicle in Quincy on March 14, 1984, was struck and injured by one Wayne Batson. [3] Earlier that day Batson had attended a promotional event known as “WBCN Free Lunch” on the premises of The Metro and drank excessively, becoming intoxicated before operating his motor vehicle.

The Metro, Miller, and WBCN agreed to sponsor this promotional event on the premises of The Metro. WBCN agreed to donate radio advertising time to apprise its listeners of the event and to provide the appearance of some of its radio personalities. Miller agreed to provide “free” beer and, in fact, did provide free beer although the beer which Batson drank excessively was not Miller’s. The plaintiff argues that The Metro, WBCN, and Miller were joint venturers and that Miller and WBCN had a right and obligation to control the distribution of free beer. It was negligent, the plaintiff argues, to fail to supervise the distribution of free beer and this negligence resulted in Batson’s intoxication, which caused the plaintiff’s injuries and emotional distress after he operated his motor vehicle.

Another theory advanced by the plaintiff implicates G. L. c. 138, § 69 (1986 ed.). The plaintiff argues that Miller and WBCN were engaged in a joint venture to violate the requirements of the statute, which prohibits the sale or distribution of alcoholic beverage to one who is already intoxicated. The plaintiff continues her argument by claiming that a violation[*78] of G. L. c. 138, § 69, was a violation of her rights under G. L. c. 93A, § 2 (1986 ed.).

The fatal weakness in the plaintiff’s entire case (both for negligence and for c. 93A violation) is the defendants’ total lack of control and right to control the distribution of the free beer. See Buck v. Clauson’s Inn at Coonamessett, Inc., 349 Mass. 612, 615 (1965). It is undisputed that neither Miller nor WBCN had a right to control the distribution of the beer. In fact, neither defendant had a license under the very statutes invoked by the plaintiff which would permit them to control the distribution of the beer.

In a word, neither WBCN nor Miller directly or vicariously was authorized to supervise the distribution of beer and hence neither WBCN nor Miller had the right to control its distribution. See Magee v. Landers, 122 Misc. 2d 736 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984). Therefore, neither WBCN nor Miller can be held liable in negligence or for violation of c. 93A.

Judgments affirmed.

2

Another defendant, That’s Entertainment, Inc., doing business as The Metro, is not a party to this appeal.

3

Batson was convicted of operating his motor vehicle while under the influence of liquor as well as operating so as to endanger and speeding.