In Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Ventures of Asheville, 334 N.C. 669, 435 S.E.2d 320 (1993), the parents of a son who died in a car accident sued a bartender who negligently served alcohol to their son for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. The Court considered whether the emotional distress suffered was a proximate and foreseeable result of the bartender's act of negligently serving their son alcohol. The Court found that "the possibility; (1) the defendant's negligence in serving alcohol to Travis; (2) would combine with Travis' driving while intoxicated; (3) to result in a fatal accident; (4) which would in turn cause Travis' parents (if he had any) not only to become distraught, but also to suffer 'severe emotional distress,' . . . was a possibility too remote to permit a finding that it was reasonably foreseeable." Id. at 674, 435 S.E.2d at 323. We read Sorrells as holding that while it might be foreseeable that: (1) negligently serving alcohol to an intoxicated person would cause that person to suffer harm should they attempt to drive; (2) that a drunk driver would get in an accident; (3) that a parent of one in such an accident would suffer emotional distress, the initial and final events in this instance are not so proximately related that the result could have been foreseeable to the bartender. In Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Ventures of Asheville, 332 N.C. 645, 648, 423 S.E.2d 72, 74 (1992), our Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's dismissal of a Rule 12(b)(6) claim in an action against a dram shop and stated that while they recognized the validity of the rule [that the defendant's willful or wanton negligence would avoid the bar of ordinary contributory negligence], we do not find it applicable in this case. Instead, we hold that plaintiff's claim is barred as a result of decedent's own actions, as alleged in the complaint, which rise to the same level of negligence as that of defendant. . . . In fact, to the extent the allegations in the complaint establish more than ordinary negligence on the part of defendant, they also establish a similarly high degree of contributory negligence on the part of the decedent. Thus, we conclude that plaintiff cannot prevail. Sorrells, 332 N.C. at 648-49, 423 S.E.2d at 74.