Dram Shop Laws: 50-State Survey under Personal Injury
⚖️ Dram Shop Laws: 50-State Survey
(Under Personal Injury Law – Detailed Explanation with Case Law)
📘 I. What Are Dram Shop Laws?
Dram Shop Laws are statutes that impose civil liability on establishments (e.g., bars, restaurants, liquor stores) that sell or serve alcohol to a person who then causes injury or death due to intoxication.
These laws are based on the public policy that those who profit from selling alcohol have a duty to avoid serving visibly intoxicated or underage individuals who may pose a risk to themselves or others.
📌 II. Key Elements of Dram Shop Liability
While each state defines its dram shop laws differently, most have these common components:
Sale or service of alcohol
To a person who is visibly intoxicated or underage
That person causes injury or death to a third party
The injured third party sues the alcohol vendor (not just the intoxicated person)
⚠️ III. Two Types of Dram Shop Liability
1. First-Party Claims
The intoxicated person sues the alcohol provider for their own injuries.
Fewer states allow these claims.
2. Third-Party Claims
A third party (e.g., a pedestrian, driver, passenger) sues the alcohol provider for damages caused by the intoxicated person.
Most common and widely recognized under dram shop laws.
📚 IV. Representative Case Law by State (Selected)
Below is a summary of dram shop law principles with leading case examples from various jurisdictions.
1. New York
📌 Case: D’Amico v. Christie (1986)
Bar served alcohol to visibly intoxicated man who drove and caused an accident.
Court held bar liable under NY General Obligations Law §11-101.
Key Rule: Vendors can be liable for serving visibly intoxicated patrons.
2. Texas
📌 Case: F.F.P. Operating Partners v. Duenez (2005)
Family injured in a drunk-driving crash sued the convenience store that sold beer.
Court held the store could be liable under Texas Dram Shop Act.
Key Feature: Comparative negligence applied to allocate fault.
3. California
📌 Case: Cory v. Shierloh (1981)
Historically, California did not allow dram shop liability.
However, now under Business and Professions Code §25602.1, liability exists for serving obviously intoxicated minors.
Limited liability state.
4. Illinois
📌 Case: Wessel v. Carmi Elks Home (1988)
Dram Shop Act imposes strict liability for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons.
No requirement to show visible intoxication.
Statutory damages caps apply.
5. Florida
📌 Case: Ellis v. N.G.N. of Tampa, Inc. (1993)
Liability for serving habitually addicted or underage persons only.
Not liable for serving visibly intoxicated adults unless special criteria met.
Narrow scope.
6. Georgia
📌 Case: Flores v. Exprezit! Stores 98-Georgia (2007)
Statute allows liability for knowingly serving minors or visibly intoxicated persons.
Case involved a convenience store and underage drunk driver.
State statute expands liability beyond bars.
7. Massachusetts
📌 Case: Adamian v. Three Sons, Inc. (1968)
Established liability for taverns serving visibly intoxicated patrons.
Used common law negligence before the statute was enacted.
Today, liability exists under both statute and common law.
8. Ohio
📌 Case: Smith v. The 10th Inning, Inc. (1990)
Liquor vendors can be liable for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons.
Statute requires proximate cause and visible intoxication.
Ohio has both statutory and common law dram shop rules.
9. Michigan
📌 Case: Manuel v. Weitzman (1993)
Plaintiffs must provide notice to the liquor licensee within 120 days.
Strict procedural rules; failure to comply can bar recovery.
Statutory limitations affect access to courts.
10. Wisconsin
📌 Case: Sorensen v. Jarvis (1982)
Previously allowed liability, but now the law prohibits most third-party dram shop claims.
Vendors generally not liable unless selling to minors.
One of the most restrictive states.
🗺️ V. Dram Shop Laws: 50-State Overview (General Trends)
| State | Dram Shop Liability Exists? | Key Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Yes | Requires willful misconduct or sale to minors |
| Alaska | Yes | Allows both first- and third-party claims |
| Arizona | Yes | Must show obvious intoxication or underage service |
| Arkansas | Limited | Only for knowingly serving a minor |
| California | Limited | Only for serving obviously intoxicated minors |
| Colorado | Yes | Caps on damages; only for minors or visible intoxication |
| Connecticut | Yes | Dram Shop Act with statutory cap on damages |
| Delaware | No | Dram shop liability not recognized |
| Florida | Limited | Only for minors or habitual alcoholics |
| Georgia | Yes | Visible intoxication or minor required |
| Hawaii | Yes | Allows for both statutory and common law liability |
| Idaho | Limited | Dram shop actions very restricted |
| Illinois | Yes | Statutory cap on damages; no need for visible intoxication |
| Indiana | Yes | Knowledge of intoxication required |
| Iowa | Yes | Statutory framework; damages cap applies |
| Kansas | No | No dram shop law (except for minors) |
| Kentucky | Yes | Allows liability for serving visibly intoxicated persons |
| Louisiana | No | Vendor protected unless selling to underage person |
| Maine | Yes | Written notice required within 180 days |
| Maryland | No | No dram shop liability recognized |
| Massachusetts | Yes | Statutory and common law both apply |
| Michigan | Yes | Strict procedural requirements; notice must be given |
| Minnesota | Yes | Allows recovery by third parties |
| Mississippi | Yes | Liability for minors or visibly intoxicated patrons |
| Missouri | Yes | Limited to knowingly serving intoxicated individuals |
| Montana | Yes | Dram Shop Act applies; statutory damages limit |
| Nebraska | No | Common law does not recognize dram shop claims |
| Nevada | No | No liability unless serving minors |
| New Hampshire | Yes | Claims permitted under statute |
| New Jersey | Yes | Requires visible intoxication; strict burden of proof |
| New Mexico | Yes | Statutory liability for visible intoxication |
| New York | Yes | One of the strongest dram shop statutes |
| North Carolina | Yes | Allows recovery for injury caused by underage intoxicated |
| North Dakota | Yes | Statute allows both first- and third-party claims |
| Ohio | Yes | Statutory and common law claims allowed |
| Oklahoma | Yes | Requires visible intoxication |
| Oregon | Yes | Dram Shop Act allows third-party recovery |
| Pennsylvania | Yes | Includes liability for serving visibly intoxicated persons |
| Rhode Island | Yes | Claims allowed; must prove intoxication and foreseeability |
| South Carolina | Yes | Allows recovery; $1 million insurance requirement for bars |
| South Dakota | No | No dram shop liability recognized |
| Tennessee | Yes | High burden of proof for dram shop claims |
| Texas | Yes | Strong dram shop statute; comparative fault applies |
| Utah | Yes | State-controlled liquor sales; liability recognized |
| Vermont | Yes | Allows claims for serving minors or intoxicated persons |
| Virginia | No | No dram shop law |
| Washington | Yes | Dram shop liability exists; includes underage service |
| West Virginia | Yes | Liability allowed for knowingly serving intoxicated persons |
| Wisconsin | No | Most claims barred unless involving minors |
| Wyoming | Yes | Limited dram shop liability under statute |
✅ VI. Conclusion
Dram shop laws reflect a societal interest in regulating the sale of alcohol and protecting the public from preventable alcohol-related harm. While some states provide robust remedies for third-party victims, others have strict limitations or no liability at all.
To succeed in a dram shop claim, plaintiffs generally must prove:
The establishment served alcohol improperly (to a minor or visibly intoxicated person),
The person caused injury, and
The alcohol service was a proximate cause of that injury.
RELATED Blog
0 comments