Soerries v. Dancause
Georgia Court of Appeals
546 S.E.2d 356 (2001)
- Written by Casey Cohen, JD
Facts
William Soerries (defendant) was the sole shareholder of Chickasaw Club, Inc. (Chickasaw) (defendant). Chickasaw operated a nightclub. In 1996, Aubrey Pursley was intoxicated when she entered the nightclub, and she was visibly intoxicated when she left around 3:00 a.m. Shortly after Pursley left the nightclub, Pursley lost control of her car and died. Joseph Dancause (plaintiff), Pursley’s stepfather, sued to recover the cost of the damaged car and punitive damages. Dancause sued Chickasaw, and Dancause sued Soerries individually, seeking to pierce the corporate veil to make Soerries personally liable. At trial, evidence showed that Soerries paid employees cash that was not reported in the corporate bookkeeping records. Evidence also showed that although the nightclub was busy, it regularly declared business losses on its corporate tax returns. Finally, evidence was presented that showed Soerries commingled his personal assets with corporate assets. For example, Soerries paid himself rent for the nightclub property, but then declared less than what he paid himself on his personal tax returns. The trial court pierced the corporate veil and found Soerries: (1) jointly liable with Chickasaw for $6,500 in compensatory damages and (2) solely, personally liable for $187,500 in punitive damages. Soerries appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Ellington, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
