Dram Shop Laws—Mandated Social Responsibility
Over 80,000 people die from alcohol-related causes each year in the U.S. The annual cost of alcohol abuse in this country is over $200 billion per year. It's all preventable.
July 15, 2020 at 08:00 PM
6 minute read
It's a shame that what should flow naturally from a concern for others has to be written into law. But that's what we have with dram shop laws—laws that impose legal consequences to those who provide alcohol to someone who appears to be intoxicated. If that person injures another due to his intoxication, then the provider of the alcohol can be sued.
Nearly every state in the union has some type of dram shop law. By definition, a dram shop is any establishment that sells alcohol, as in a "dram of gin." The term dram shop goes back to 18th century England, where establishments that sold alcohol dotted the landscape. Dram shop laws make businesses and individuals strictly liable if they sell or provide alcohol to someone who appears to be intoxicated.
Dram shop laws vary from state to state. From a historical perspective, dram shop laws are fairly new, having emerged in just the past 30 years. Before that, courts held that injuries caused by a drunken person were the sole liability of that person.
A handful of states have no dram shop law, and one state—California—has a law that specifically holds liquor establishments blameless for the actions of its adult patrons. They can still be held accountable for providing alcohol to minors, however.
Virginia, South Dakota, Nevada and Maryland also have no dram shop law, other than laws regarding the sale or provision of alcohol to minors. Elsewhere, and particularly in Texas, where my practice is located, the law still has some decent teeth to it.
|Not Limited to DUI
The majority of the claims against liquor establishments relate to patrons who drive drunk and cause a crash that injures someone. But the liability is not limited to DUI cases. Any injuries or damage caused by an intoxicated person can form the premise of a lawsuit.
For instance, if a person at a bar has too many beers and starts or participates in a fight that injures someone, the establishment can be held liable, if it can be proved that the defendant was served alcohol while showing clear signs of intoxication.
|Who's Accountable for Whom?
Bartenders, servers and managers are often trained to detect signs of intoxication and follow specific policies for dealing with intoxicated patrons. The establishments that provide this training desire to differentiate themselves from other establishments that might not be as conscientious in this regard.
In some states, such as Texas, their efforts are rewarded by "safe harbor" provisions that to a degree exclude them from liability. The premise here is that they tried their best to observe their customers closely, but one slipped through anyway. It's not an ironclad defense but has been effective in some cases.
Essentially, the responsibility for observing people as they consume alcohol falls on many shoulders. You can have someone who goes into a bar and becomes intoxicated, and it doesn't have to be established by the bartender. It can be established by a third party, or anybody that he's with. The reason that's important is that otherwise, it's just a drunken person's word against the bartender's word.
|Two or More Bars—Whose Alcohol Put Someone Over the Limit?
If a person leaves one bar and visits another, showing signs of intoxication on arrival, the second bar should refuse him service, yet it rarely does. Now you're ratcheting up liability for a second place as well, for failing to intervene.
If the second bar continues to serve him, the argument can be, "Well, he got drunk at the first place, but the straw that broke the camel's back was at the second place." Now you've put two defendants on notice.
Every establishment that serves alcohol has an obligation to observe its patrons' behavior and take appropriate action. It doesn't matter if that patron has already consumed alcohol elsewhere. The bar is responsible for what occurs while the patrons are on its premises.
|Individuals' Obligation to Supervise Alcohol Consumption
Party hosts are under a category known as social host liability law, which is very similar to dram shop laws. For some states, the law applies only to serving alcohol to minors, but others include all guests, and in some states, the overall dram shop laws include a section on individuals.
Hosts have a duty to observe their guests and to refuse the serving of alcohol to someone who shows clear signs of intoxication. Fellow guests can perform a great service to hosts by intervening with someone who's had too much to drink—offering to call a cab or driving them home. Ultimately, it's up to the host to follow through on intervention measures.
|What Are the Signs of Intoxication?
The best way to recognize a person's state of intoxication is to apply the police's general guide for identifying DUI suspects. Those include:
- Bloodshot or watery eyes.
- Flushed face.
- Profuse sweating.
- Slurred speech.
- Speaking nonsensically.
- Odor of alcohol.
While it would be a little presumptuous to expect a bartender to perform a police-like field sobriety test or the horizontal gaze nystagmus test, it is reasonable to expect them to notice the more overt signs of intoxication.
|Injured by a Drunken Person? Call an Attorney
The law regarding alcohol (and drug) intoxication is multifaceted. Defense strategies take many forms. An attorney who keeps up with the law, is familiar with the exceptions within the law, and recognizes the many ways defendants will try to circumvent the law is your best ally.
The best outcome, of course, is not having to call an attorney at all. This is where shared responsibility falls on all of us to recognize when someone puts themselves or others at risk. Over 80,000 people die from alcohol-related causes each year in the U.S. The annual cost of alcohol abuse in this country is over $200 billion per year.
It's all preventable. We just have to care.
Patrick Daniel is the founder and principal of Patrick Daniel Law, based in Houston, Texas. He specializes in plaintiff's personal injury with a focus on trucking accidents, products liability, and maritime injury. He can be reached at https://www.patrickdaniellaw.com/attorneys/patrick-daniel/.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'GoodPop, Bad Pop': Hueston Hennigan Files Suit Against Freezer Pop-Maker Alleging False Advertising
$30.7M Verdicts: Lawyers Sway Dallas Jury Against Popeyes Franchisee
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 3Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 4Greenberg Traurig Initiates String of Suits Following JPMorgan Chase's 'Infinite Money Glitch'
- 5It's Time Law Firms Were Upfront About Who Their Salaried Partners Are
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250