 |
 |
|
| |
|
|
State v. Guminga
Supreme Court of Minnesota (1981)
Defendant: Guminga; the defendant was a bar owner whose employee sold alcohol to a minor. The defendant was charged and convicted under Florida statue which carried criminal fines and possible imprisonment.
Issue: Does this statue violate the defendant's due process rights?
Holding: Yes
Key Facts: Even though the defendant did not personally sell the liquor to the minor, he was still liable because he was the employer of the employee who made the sale. This is called vicarious liability.
Legal Reasoning: The court used the balancing test where it found that the public good served by the statue in question was extremely outweighed by the infringement of personal privacy it provided to the defendant. The court also considered the possibility of an alternative methods of serving the purposes of the statue and it concluded that civil fines to the owner will serve the purposes of the statue and at the same time, would not deny the defendant the due process of law.