An Alabama judge today refused for a second time to dismiss a former stripper's unusual negligence lawsuit, ruling that a strip club may be liable for allowing her to drive home from work “in a highly intoxicated state.”

The decision paves the way for a trial next month in Patsy Hamaker's case over the injuries she sustained when she wrecked her car after working at The Furnace club in Birmingham, Ala., on Oct. 18, 2007, leaving her disfigured and with a broken back. She has sued the club's owners, BIT, Inc., for negligent supervision and training.

Denying BIT's second motion for summary judgment, Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Caryl P. Privett agreed with Hamaker that an employer who permits or encourages on-the-job alcohol consumption can be sued for failing to properly or adequately supervise employees.

Hamaker contends The Furnace “created an environment in which the consumption of alcohol by dancers was encouraged.” According to court documents, its dancers earn commissions ranging from $5 to $900 on sales of “Dancer Drinks” to customers that cost from $12 to $2,500.

“The Court finds that a genuine issue of material fact exists as to whether permitting or encouraging performers to drink alcoholic beverages imposes a duty on the employer: (1) to train its employees differently with regard to those it permits or encourages to drink, and/or (2) to exercise more intense supervision of those it permits or encourages to drink,” Privett said in her order.

In January, she denied an earlier summary judgment motion but did so without giving any explanation.

Hamaker's blood-alcohol level was more than twice the legal limit when she had her accident. BIT contends she sold only one dancer's drink, a $22 half-bottle of wine, that night and broke club rules by surreptitiously drinking at least one shot of liquor.

The Furnace also has a policy of having dancers surrender their car keys when they show up for work. At the end of their shift, they must pass a breathalyzer test in order for their keys to be returned.

According to BIT, Hamaker was able to leave the club because she “was in possession of two sets of automobile keys, one of which was in Defendant’s possession and one of which remained in Defendant’s possession.”

BIT compares the case to Mohacsy v. Holiday Inns, 603 So. 2d 956 (1992), in which the Alabama Supreme Court said a man injured in a one-car accident after getting drunk at a company Christmas party could not sue his employer for negligence and outrage. “[T]he ultimate responsibility for his intoxication must rest with [Plaintiff],” the court held.

But a manager at The Furnace has testified that the policy for surrendering keys was only instituted the day after Hamaker's accident. And Privett ruled that a jury should decide whether Hamaker

had a second set of car keys and left the premises of The Furnace against the orders of Defendant's management, or whether there was only one set of car keys. If there were only one set of car keys, a question exists as to whether the actions of Defendant in allowing Plaintiff to have her keys despite her intoxicated state was wanton conduct on behalf of the Defendant.

Hamaker is seeking compensation of more than $95,000 in medical and vehicle-repair bills and lost income of $2,500 per month.

By Matthew Heller
12/8/09