Robert Boehnen was charged with violating a Waukesha, Wisconsin, ordinance that makes it illegal for a person who holds a liquor license or one of his or her employees to serve alcohol to anyone not of legal age. The Waukesha Municipal Court convicted Boehnen and ordered him to pay a fine. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed.

Facts

Robert Boehnen owns Fox Run Lanes and holds a license to sell alcohol in that establishment. One of the bartenders he employs sold a beer to an underage volunteer participating in a sting operation conducted by the Waukesha police. Boehnen was not present at the time of this sale. However, the police cited Boehnen, and not the bartender, for serving the underage person under WAUKESHA, WIS., MUN. CODE § 9.16(2). The City has a policy of always citing the business owner, as opposed to his or her employees, when enforcing this law.....

1. List the facts relevant to deciding whether bar owner Robert Boehnen is guilty of violating the ordinance.

2. Summarize Boehnen’s argument that he’s not liable for his bartender selling liquor to the police sting volunteer.

3. Summarize the Wisconsin Court of Appeal’s arguments supporting its decision to affirm Boehnen’s conviction.

4. In your opinion, should the bartender, Boehnen, or both be held liable? Support your answer with points regarding vicarious liability made in the opinion, in the vicarious liability section, and in Chapter 4, “Strict Liability,” pp. 142–145 of your text.

Data from chapter 4

Supporters of strict liability make two main arguments. First, there’s a strong public interest in protecting public health and safety. Strict liability arose during the industrial revolution when manufacturing, mining, and commerce exposed large numbers of the public to death, mutilation, and disease from poisonous fumes, unsafe railroads, workplaces, and adulterated foods and other products. Second, the penalty for strict liability offenses is almost always mild.