ÿWPC«# …# VUNa %¯ 0 DµU>ùb7 0ˆ? 0DÇ 0` w@k 4« ¿ UPÎ 0J 0Th 0^¼  0h" 0rŠ 0|ü 0†x 0þ 1uŽU, 0d/ D3“ BÆ 0@ãU,#U>OU6¦ÃB)iDC’ AMÕU*"ELM‘MÞ/+[Zv~µvÓ3 AO"ÆU" 0D# D/_# BŽ#˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX(óf$¡¡Ò€°ÒÒÀ°Ò<èÀ( 9Z &Courier Regular- ù-(8(3ß«$¤¤Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ýà Ø àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(83‚ª$©©Ý ƒóf!ÝÒ€°ÒÒÀ°ÒÝ  Ý ŒDŽD‘ P’P“D”Ó€ ŽUv 3|x¢&@FÐZ ‹8CaslonOpnface BT Regular2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô!"# ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ,,,,'ÿÿdxd d("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Courier New œÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ )ÝÝ  ÝÌÌÌ% Line 7 d44447Border 1dd€-5Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial ;Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÔ€7ÔÔ€7ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€7XÔÌÌò òMarchÏ25,Ï1996ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€7ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔFor€the€purpose€of€this€opinion,€no€distinction€is€madeÏbetween€a€"minor"€and€a€"person€under€2l€years€of€age."Ì CÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2Ô"Any€licensee€or€other€person€who€sells,€furnishes,Ïdisposes€of,€gives,€or€causes€to€be€sold,€furnished,€disposedÏof,€or€given,€any€alcoholic€beverage€to€any€person€underÏtwenty„one€(21)€years€of€age€is€guilty€of€a€Class€AÏmisdemeanor."€€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„4„203(b)(1)€(Supp.€1995).ÌÌà à"It€is€unlawful€for€the€management€of€any€place€where€anyÏbeverage€licensed€hereunder€is€sold€to€allow€any€minor€toÏloiter€about€such€place€of€business,€and€the€burden€ofÏascertaining€the€age€of€minor€customers€shall€be€upon€theÏowner€or€operator€of€such€place€of€business."€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€€57„5„301(c)€(Supp.€1995).Ì %Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔThese€sections€are€set€forth€on€page€€____,€òòinfraóó.€[SlipÏop.€at€pp.€7„8.]€€Ì QÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÝ ƒ$Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€2ÔòòSeeóó€òòe.g.óó,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€57„3„406(d),€57„3„412(a)(1),€57„4„203(b),€and€57„5„301(a),€(c)€(Supp.€1995).€€ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA: T Monaco ÒÒ  BA: T Monaco Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÓ&€00X„d&ÓÑ#€00Xd#ÑÔ€1ÔÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÝ  ÝÑ , ÑÔ€2ԛрÑÑ7€XXdÈdÈ7ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÖ€3ÖÑ  Ñœà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMarch€25,Ï1996›à àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœòòà àà àFOR›€PUBLICATIONóóÌÌà@ àIN€THE€SUPREME€COURTÏOF€TENNESSEEÌÌà@ àAT€KNOXVILLE€€ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€685;+'h|` à. `€€Lß›ÌÌÌÌÌGARY€WORLEY€AND€PHYLLIS€à àà à(ÌWORLEY,€INDIVIDUALLY€AND€ASà à(ÌCONSERVATORS€FOR€THE€ESTATEà à(ÌOF€PHILLIP€WORLEY,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àPlaintiffs„Appellees,à à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌÒ € ÒÒ à Òà àà àà àà àà àà à(€KnoxÏCountyÌà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€Hon.ÏHarold€Wimberly,€JudgeÌv.à àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(€No.Ï03S01„9505„CV„00047Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(ÌWEIGEL'S,€INC.,à àà àà à(Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à(Ìà àDefendant„Appellant.à à(ÌÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiffs„Appelleesóó:€€à àà àòòForÏDefendant„Appellantóó:ÌÌGeorge€F.€Leggà àà àà àà àà àDarryl€G.€LoweÌBecky€H.€Halseyà àà àà àà àLisa€A.€LoweÌStone€&€Hinds,€P.C.à àà àà àà àLowe,€Shirley€&€YeagerÌKnoxvilleà àà àà àà àà àà àKnoxvilleÌÌÌÌÌœ›ÌÌÌÌà@ àòòò òÔ€2„ÔÔ€ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€NÔ€2ÔÔ€2XÔóóó óÌÌÌÌÌÌÌÌJUDGMENT€OF€COURT€OF€APPEALSÌREVERSED;€ORDER€GRANTING€SUMMARYÌJUDGMENT€REINSTATED.à àà àà àà à€€€€REID,€J.ÇÒ € ÒÒ À ÒÓ` Ü` ˜XÓÓÓà àThis€case€presents€for€review€the€liability€of€aÏseller€of€alcoholic€beverages€to€a€person€under€2l€years€ofÏage.× ƒ9 ××  ×€€The€trial€court€granted€summary€judgment€of€no€liabilityÏto€the€seller.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€reversed€on€the€findingÏthat€the€case€presents€issues€for€the€jury.€€This€Court€findsÏthat,€pursuant€to€public€policy€expressly€declared€by€theÏlegislature€regarding€liability€for€the€sale€of€intoxicatingÏliquors,€the€seller€in€this€case€is€not€liable€for€theÏinjuries€alleged,€as€a€matter€of€law.ÌÌà@ àIÌÌà àFor€purposes€of€summary€judgment,€the€facts€are€notÏin€dispute.€€At€about€2:50€a.m.€on€September8,€1991,€theÏœplaintiffs'›€child,€Phillip€Worley,€sustained€serious€andÏpermanent€personal€injuries€when€the€vehicle€in€which€he€wasÏriding€as€a€guest€passenger€and€which€was€being€operated€byÏAnthony€œKaiser,›€crashed€into€a€utility€pole€while€traveling€atÏa€high€rate€of€speed.€€ÌÌà àOn€the€prior€evening,€Worley,€Kaiser,€Scott€Goosie,Ïand€several€of€their€friends,€all€of€whom€were€under€2l€yearsÏof€age,€gathered€at€the€residence€of€one€of€the€group€whoseÏparents€were€away€from€home.€€During€the€evening,€Goosie€andÏWorley€were€dispatched€to€a€store€owned€by€the€defendant,ÏWeigel's,€Inc.,€to€purchase€beer.€€Goosie,€who€was€20€œyears›€ofÏage€at€the€time,€purchased€a€substantial€quantity€of€beer.€€HeÏpurchased€the€beer€without€showing€or€being€asked€by€the€clerkÏto€show€any€evidence€of€his€age.€€Goosie€did€not€drink€anyÏbeer€during€the€evening.€€However,€Kaiser€became€intoxicatedÏfrom€drinking€beer€purchased€by€Goosie.€€While€en€route€fromÏthe€party,€with€Worley€as€a€passenger,€Kaiser,€because€of€hisÏintoxication,€lost€control€of€his€vehicle€and€the€collisionÏresulted.ÌÌà àWorley's€parents,€individually€and€as€hisÏconservators,€sued€the€defendant€and€alleged€as€a€cause€ofÏaction€the€violation€of€the€provisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ððððÍ57„4„203(b)(1)€and€57„5„301(c)€(Supp.€1995).× ƒ: ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€defendant€denied€liability€and€as€affirmativeÏdefenses€plead€the€following:€€Worley€was€negligent€inÏobtaining€and€consuming€alcohol,€riding€in€a€vehicle€with€anÏobviously€intoxicated€driver,€and€participating€in€the€illegalÏpurchase€of€alcohol;€damages€should€be€reduced€underÏcomparative€negligence;€the€damages€allegedly€sustained€wereÏcaused€or€contributed€to€by€the€negligence€of€Kaiser,€and€anyÏrecovery€should€be€diminished€by€the€percentage€of€negligenceÏattributable€to€said€non„party;€the€damages€were€caused€orÏcontributed€to€by€the€negligence€of€Goosie,€and€any€recoveryÏshould€be€diminished€by€the€percentage€of€negligenceÏattributable€to€said€non„party;€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101€(1989)€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð57„10„102€(1989)€preventÏrecovery€against€œthe€defendant.›× ƒ; ××  ×ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€granted€the€defendant's€motion€forÏsummary€judgment.€€That€court€held€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101,€in€a€clear€statement€designed€to€protect€the€sellersÏof€alcoholic€beverages,€provides€that€the€consumption€ofÏalcoholic€beverages,€rather€than€the€sale,€is€the€proximateÏcause€of€injuries€inflicted€by€an€intoxicated€person.€€TheÏcourt€further€held€that€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„102,€oneÏwho€sells€alcoholic€beverages€to€a€minor€may€be€liable€if€theÏseller€had€actual€or€constructive€knowledge€that€the€purchaserÏwas€under€21€years€of€age,€but€then€only€if€the€injury€isÏcaused€by€the€purchaser's€consumption€of€the€beverage.€ÌÌà àThe€Court€of€Appeals€agreed€with€the€trial€court'sÏdecision€that€the€imposition€of€liability€does€not€requireÏactual€knowledge€that€the€purchaser€was€under€21,€but€reversedÏthe€summary€judgment,€finding€that€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„102Ídoes€not€limit€the€seller's€liability€to€injuries€caused€byÏthe€purchaser's€consumption€of€the€alcoholic€beverages€and,Ïfurther,€that€the€seller€in€this€case€is€estopped€from€denyingÏthat€Worley's€injuries€were€caused€by€the€purchaser€Goosie.€ÏThose€same€issues€are€before€this€Court€for€decision.€€ÌÌÌà@ àIIÌÌà àRule€56.03€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€of€Civil€ProcedureÏprovides€that€summary€judgment€"shall€be€rendered€forthwith€ifÏthe€pleadings,€depositions,€answers€to€inter‚rogatories,€andÏadmissions€on€file,€together€with€the€affi‚davits,€if€any,€showÏthat€there€is€no€genuine€issue€as€to€any€material€fact€andÏthat€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€a€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw."€€The€issues€presented€are€determined€by€the€meaning€ofÏSections€57„10„101€and€57„10„102.€€"[C]onstruction€of€[a]Ïstatute€and€application€of€the€law€to€the€facts€[areÏquestions]€of€law."€€òòBeare€Co.€v.€Tennessee€Dept.€of€Revenueóó,Ï858€S.W.2d€906,€907€(Tenn.€1993).€€It€follows€that€the€issuesÏpresented€are€questions€of€law€raised€by€the€motion€forÍsummary€judgment.€€Consequently,€the€scope€of€review€is€òòdeóóÏòònovoóó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€€òòSeeóó€Rule€13(d),ÏT.R.A.P.;€òòUnion€Carbide€Corp.€v.€Huddlestonóó,€854€S.W.2d€87,€91Ï(Tenn.€1993).ÌÌà@ àIIIÌÌà àThe€first€issue€is€whether€a€seller€may€be€heldÏliable€for€injuries€caused€by€an€intoxicated€minor€whoÏconsumed€alcoholic€beverages€furnished€by€another€minor€whoÏpurchased€the€beverages€from€the€seller.€€€The€defendantÏcontends€that€the€statutes€prohibit€recovery€unless€the€buyerÏconsumes€the€beverage€and,€as€a€direct€result€of€thatÏconsumption,€causes€injury.€€The€plaintiffs€contend€thatÏliability€extends€to€injuries€caused€by€other€minors€where€itÏwas€reasonably€foreseeable€that€the€other€minors€would€consumeÏthe€alcoholic€drink.€€Their€position€is€that,€even€thoughÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„101€limits€proximate€causationÏgenerally,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€57„10„102€preserves€its€usualÏapplication€in€the€two€particular€situations€set€forth€in€theÏstatute,€sales€to€minors€and€sales€to€intoxicated€persons.€€ÌÌà àIn€òòBrookins€v.€The€Round€Table,€Inc.óó,€624€S.W.2d€547Ï(Tenn.€1981),€the€Court€summarized€the€development€of€the€law€Ïat€that€time:ÌÌÓÓà8 àà àAt€common€law,€an€individual€who€soldÏor€furnished€alcohol€to€another€generallyÏwas€held€not€to€be€liable€for€damagesÏresulting€from€the€other's€intoxication,Ïeven€if€those€damages€were€foreseeable,€inÏpart€because€the€other's€acceptance€andÏuse€of€the€intoxicants€was€considered€anÏindependent€intervening€cause,€cutting€offÏany€liability.€€Today,€even€in€the€absenceÏof€statutes€prohibiting€the€sale€ofÏintoxicating€beverages€to€a€minor€or€to€anÏintoxicated€person,€courts€generallyÏrecognize€that€the€furnishing€ofÏintoxicants€may€be€the€proximate€cause€ofÏan€injury€resulting€from€intoxication,€theÏnegligence€consisting€of€the€creation€of€aÏsituation€or€condition€which€involvesÏunreasonable€risk€because€of€theÏforeseeable€action€of€another.ÌÌÌÌòòIdóó.€at€549€(citations€omitted).€€ÓÓReversing€the€lower€court'sÏgrant€of€summary€judgment,€the€òòBrookinsóó€court€stated,Ï"[W]hether€the€sale€of€intoxicants€is€the€proximate€cause€ofÏsubsequent€injuries€is€essentially€a€question€ofÏforeseeability€...."€€òòIdóó.€€òòBrookinsóó€noted€the€purpose€of€theÍlegislation€prohibiting€the€sale€of€alcohol€to€minors:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThese€broad€prohibitions€are€intended€notÏonly€to€protect€minors€from€the€folly€ofÏtheir€own€actions,€but€are€for€theÏprotection€of€members€of€the€generalÏpublic€as€well.€€They€are€directed€toÏminors€as€a€class€in€recognition€of€theirÏsusceptibilities€and€the€intensificationÏof€dangers€inherent€in€the€consumption€ofÏalcoholic€beverages,€when€consumed€by€aÏperson€lacking€in€maturity€andÏresponsibility.ÌÌÌÌòòIdóó.€at€550.€€ÓÓUnder€the€òòBrookinsóó€decision,€the€plaintiffs'Ïcause€of€action€in€the€present€case€would€survive€summaryÏjudgment,€and€the€issue€for€the€jury€to€decide€would€beÏwhether€the€injury€sustained€by€Worley€was€reasonablyÏforeseeable.ÌÌà àHowever,€Title€57,€Chapter€10,€of€the€TennesseeÏCode,€entitled€"Alcohol„Related€Injuries",€replaced€the€ruleÏstated€in€òòBrookinsóó.€€Section€57„10„101€(1989)€provides:ÌÌÓÓà8 àThe€general€assembly€hereby€finds€andÏdeclares€that€the€consumption€of€anyÏalcoholic€beverage€or€beer€rather€than€theÏfurnishing€of€any€alcoholic€beverage€orÍbeer€is€the€proximate€cause€of€injuriesÏinflicted€upon€another€by€an€intoxicatedÏperson.ÌÌÌÌSection€57„10„102€provides:ÌÌÌÌà8 àNotwithstanding€the€provisions€of€ðð57„10„101,€no€judge€or€jury€may€pronounce€aÏjudgment€awarding€damages€to€or€on€behalfÏof€any€party€who€has€suffered€personalÏinjury€or€death€against€any€person€who€hasÏsold€any€alcoholic€beverage€or€beer,Ïunless€such€jury€of€twelve€(12)€personsÏhas€first€ascertained€beyond€a€reasonableÏdoubt€that€the€sale€by€such€person€of€theÏalcoholic€beverage€or€beer€was€theÏproximate€cause€of€the€personal€injury€orÏdeath€sustained€and€that€such€person:ÌÌà8 àà à(1)€€Sold€the€alcoholic€beverage€orÏbeer€to€a€person€known€to€be€under€the€ageÏof€twenty„one€(21)€years€and€such€personÏcaused€the€personal€injury€or€death€as€theÏdirect€result€of€the€consumption€of€theÏalcoholic€beverage€or€beer€so€sold;€orÌÌà8 àà à(2)€€Sold€the€alcoholic€beverage€orÏbeer€to€an€obviously€intoxicated€personÏand€such€person€caused€the€personal€injuryÏor€death€as€the€direct€result€of€theÏconsumption€of€the€alcoholic€beverage€orÏbeer€so€sold.Ì€ÌÌÌÓÓà àWith€the€enactment€of€these€statutes,€theÏlegislature€made€a€definite€distinction€between€the€basis€forÍcivil€liability€and€the€basis€for€criminal€liability€incidentÏto€the€sale€of€alcoholic€beverages.€€These€statutes,€ratherÏthan€the€duties€imposed€by€criminal€statutes,œ× ƒ< ××  ×›€determine€theÏcivil€liability€of€the€seller.€€These€statutes€declare€thatÏthe€"consumption"€rather€than€the€"furnishing€of"€intoxicatingÏbeverages€is€deemed€the€"proximate€cause€of€injuriesÏinflicted"€by€the€intoxicated€person,€except€that€a€sale€mayÏbe€deemed€to€be€the€proximate€cause€when€the€sale€is€to€aÏperson€known€to€be€a€minor€and€whose€consumption€causes€theÏinjury€or€to€a€person€who€is€"obviously€intoxicated"€and€whoseÏconsumption€caused€the€injury.€€Since€the€purchaser€in€thisÏcase€did€not€consume€the€beverage€purchased,€the€accident€wasÏnot€caused€by€the€purchaser's€consumption€of€the€beverage.€ÏTherefore,€there€is€no€liability€on€the€seller.€€ÌÌà àThe€second€issue€also€precludes€recovery€andÏrequires€the€grant€of€summary€judgment.€€That€issue€is€theÏmeaning€of€the€phrase€"known€to€be€under€the€age€of€twenty„oneÏ(21)€years."€€The€trial€court€found€that€Section€57„10„102(1)Ídoes€not€require€actual€knowledge,€and€that,€where€reasonableÏinquiry€is€not€made€as€to€the€age€of€the€buyer,€the€sellerÏwill€be€deemed€to€have€constructive€knowledge€that€the€buyerÏis€a€minor.€€The€Court€of€Appeals€agreed.€€Nevertheless,€thatÏconstruction€is€not€permitted€by€the€plain€language€of€theÏstatute.€€Under€the€statute,€an€action€will€not€lie€against€aÏseller€of€intoxicating€beverages€unless€it€is€proved€beyond€aÏreasonable€doubt€that€the€seller€knew€that€the€purchaser€was€aÏminor€and€sold€intoxicating€beverages€to€him€or€her€anyway.€€ÌÌà à"Generally,€statutes€in€derogation€of€the€common€lawÏare€to€be€strictly€construed€and€confined€to€their€expressÏterms€.€.€.€."€€òòEzell€v.€Cockrellóó,€902€S.W.2d€394,€399€(Tenn.Ï1995).€€However,€"[t]he€most€basic€principle€of€statutoryÏconstruction€is€to€ascertain€and€give€effect€to€theÏlegislative€intent€without€unduly€restricting€or€expanding€aÏstatute's€coverage€beyond€its€intended€scope."€€òòOwens€v.ÏStateóó,€908€S.W.2d€923,€926€(Tenn.€1995);€òòState€v.€Sligeróó,€846ÏS.W.2d€262,€263€(Tenn.€1993).€€"When€the€words€of€a€statuteÏare€plain€and€unambiguous,€the€assumption€is€'that€theÏlegislature€intended€what€it€wrote€and€meant€what€it€said.'€ÍThe€pertinent€language€must€be€[applied]€'without€any€forcedÏor€subtle€construction€extending€its€import.'"€€òòMcClain€v.ÏHenry€I.€Siegel€Co.óó,€834€S.W.2d€295,€296€(Tenn.€1992)Ï(citations€omitted).€€These€statutes€are€models€of€clarity.€ÏConstruction€or€interpretation€of€their€plain€language€wouldÏbe€an€exercise€in€obfuscation.€€ÌÌà àEven€if€the€meaning€of€the€statutes€was€not€clear,Ïthe€legislative€history€demonstrates€a€legislative€intent€toÏprotect€sellers€from€liability€in€the€situation€presented€inÏthis€case.€€The€legislative€history€reveals€that€the€billÏenacting€the€two€statutes€was€promoted€by€the€TennesseeÏHotel/Motel€Association€to€insulate€the€sellers€ofÏintoxicating€beverages€from€suits€for€injuries€caused€by€theirÏpatrons.€€The€Senate€sponsor€stated€during€the€discussion€ofÏthe€proposed€legislation:€ÌÌÓÓà8 àI€guess€I€feel€like€a€person€should€beÏresponsible€for€his€own€actions€and€noÏother€people.€€...€What€the€bill€does€nowÏwas€say€that€in€2€exceptions,€that€exceptÏin€the€cases€of€serving€to€a€minor€orÏserving€to€an€obviously€intoxicatedÏperson,€that€the€establishment€servingÏalcoholic€beverages€should€not€be€heldÍliable.€€Many,€many€cases€have€come€to€usÏthis€year€whereby€the€establishments,Ïrestaurants,€or€lounges€cannot€obtainÏinsurance€at€any€cost.ÌÌÌÌÓÓWith€regard€to€the€issue€of€intent,€the€following€explanationÏwas€given:ÌÌÓÓà8 àIf€this€bill€passes€as€it€has€beenÏwritten,€you€have€involved€the€intent€inÏthe€law€of€sale€to€minors.€€I€have€to€knowÏhe€is€a€minor.€€I€have€to€intend€that€heÏhad€it€as€a€minor€otherwise,€you€are€notÏgoing€to€be€able€to€recover.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€legislative€intent€was€that€the€seller's€penalty€forÏselling€to€minors€would€be€sanctions€other€than€civilÏliability.€€The€sponsor€stated€further:ÌÌÓÓà0 àOn€the€minor€situation,€I€think€that€the€providersÏof€alcoholic€beverages€have€an€absolute€deterrent€toÏsell€to€minors€because€they€can€lose€their€licenseÏand€be€put€out€of€business€if€they€sell€to€a€minor.ÌÌÌÌÓÓThe€bill€was€debated€extensively.€€The€cost€to€society€ofÏprotecting€sellers€of€intoxicating€beverages€was€discussed.€ÏIn€opposition€to€the€proposed€legislation,€the€legislature€wasÍpresented€with€a€case€similar€to€the€present€one,€a€mother€ofÏthree€small€children€sustained€severe€brain€damage€as€theÏresult€of€injuries€caused€by€an€intoxicated€driver.€€TheÏtestimony€before€the€legislature€showed€that€the€woman€wouldÏnot€have€recovered€damages€from€the€seller€had€the€proposedÏstatute€been€in€effect,€and€the€victim,€therefore,€would€haveÏbecome€a€ward€of€the€state.€€ÌÌà àNevertheless,€the€legislation€was€enacted,€and€theÏclear€conclusion€is€that€the€legislature€intended€that€civilÏliability€for€the€sale€of€alcoholic€beverages€to€a€minor€mayÏnot€be€imposed€on€the€seller€unless€the€seller€knew€that€theÏpurchaser€was€a€minor,€and€the€minor€who€purchased€theÏbeverage€also€consumed€it€and€thereby€directly€caused€theÏaccident.€€This€record€does€not€support€these€conditionsÏnecessary€for€the€imposition€of€liability€upon€the€seller€ofÏthe€alcoholic€beverage.ÌÌà àThe€third€issue€presented€is€whether€the€Court€ofÏAppeals€erred€in€finding€that€the€seller€was€estopped€fromÏdenying€that€Goosie€caused€the€injuries€to€Worley.€€In€itsÍorder€granting€summary€judgment€to€the€defendant,€the€trialÏcourt€ruled€that€Goosie€did€not€cause€the€injury.€€The€CourtÏof€Appeals€reversed€the€trial€court,€finding€that€theÏdefendant€was€estopped€from€denying€that€Goosie€was€a€cause€ofÏthe€injuries.€€The€court€stated:ÌÌÓÓà8 à[T]he€trial€court€held€that€Scottie€GoosieÏdid€not€cause€the€injury€to€PhillipÏWorley,€but€rather€gave€the€beer€toÏanother€minor€who€did€cause€the€injury.€ÏDefendant€has€acknowledged,€however,€thatÏScottie€Goosie's€action€did€in€factÏconstitute€a€cause€of€Phillip€Worley'sÏpersonal€injuries.€€In€its€answer€to€theÏcomplaint,€Weigel's€asserted:ÌÌà8 àà8 àNo.€13€€For€its€fourthÏaffirmative€defense,€theÏdefendant€alleges€that€theÏinjuries€and€damages€allegedlyÏsustained€by€the€plaintiff€wereÏcaused€or€contributed€to€by€theÏnegligence€of€Scott€Goosie...ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àAs€required€by€Rule€8.03€of€the€Tennessee€Rules€ofÏCivil€Procedure,€the€defendant€set€forth€as€affirmativeÏdefenses€the€comparative€fault€of€Worley,€Kaiser,€and€Goosie,Ïin€order€to€limit€its€potential€liability€under€comparativeÏfault€principles.€€òòSeeóó€òòRidings€v.€The€Ralph€M.€Parsons€Co.óó,Í_____€€S.W.2d€_____,€_____€(Tenn.€1996)€[slip€op.€at€12].€€TheÏdefendant€also€averred€as€an€affirmative€defense€that€theÏconsumption€of€the€beer€was€the€proximate€cause€of€theÏinjuries€inflicted€on€Worley.€€These€obviously€are€alternativeÏpleadings€which€are€allowed€under€Rule€8.05(2).€€AnÏalternative€pleading€may€not€be€used€as€an€admission.€€òòSeeóóÏòòAnthony€v.€Tidwellóó,€560€S.W.2d€908,€910€(Tenn.€1977).€€ÌœÌÌ›Ìà@ àIVÌÌà àThe€judgment€of€the€Court€of€Appeals€is€reversed,Ïand€the€trial€court's€order€granting€summary€judgment€isÏreinstated.ÌÌà àCosts€are€adjudged€against€the€plaintiffs.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà à______________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àReid,€J.ÌÌÌConcur:ÌÌAnderson,€C.J.,€Drowota,€Birch,€Ì€€€and€White,€JJ.ÌÔ€7Ô