As of July 10, 2019
| Dram Shop Law(s) | Applicable to Minors? | Applicable to the Intoxicated? | |
| AL | Persons injured by an intoxicated person or in consequence of a person’s intoxication has a civil right of action against anyone who sold, gave, or otherwise disposed of the alcohol, contrary to the provisions of law, causing the intoxication. Ala. Code § 6-5-71.
|
Yes. Providing alcohol to a minor is contrary to the provision of law under § 6-5-71.
See McGough v. G & A, Inc., 999 So.2d 898, 911 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007). |
Yes. Sale of liquor to a visibly intoxicated person is contrary to the provision of law under § 6-5-71.
See Attalla Golf & Country Club, Inc., v. Harris, 601 So.2d 965, 968 (Ala. 1992). |
| AK | Licensed persons or agents/employees of a licensee who provides alcoholic beverages to another person who is either under the age of 21 or is a drunken person can be held civilly liable for injuries resulting from the intoxication. Alaska Stat. § 04.21.020. | Yes. Alaska Stat. § 04.16.051.
Unless the licensee, agent, or employee secures in good faith a signed statement, liquor identification card, or driver’s license indicating that the person is at least 21 years of age. Alaska Stat. § 04.21.020. |
Yes. Alaska Stat. § 04.21.020.
A licensee, agent, or employee may not with criminal negligence sell, give, transport, or barter (or allow another person to do so) alcoholic beverages to a drunken person. Alaska Stat. § 04.16.030. |
| AZ | A licensee can be held liable for serving intoxicated persons or minors if: the alcohol was sold to such person(s); the purchaser consumed the alcohol; and the consumption was a proximate cause of the damages, injury, and/or death. Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311. | Yes. Sale of alcohol “to a purchaser under the legal drinking age without requesting identification containing proof of age or with knowledge that the person was under the legal drinking age.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311(A)(1).
Defense could be that identification was requested, produced, and seemed reliable. |
Yes. Sale of alcohol to “purchaser who was obviously intoxicated.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311(A)(1).
“Obviously intoxicated” defined as substantially impaired physical faculties and shown by uncoordinated action or physical dysfunction in Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311(D). |
| AR | Cause of action available against alcohol retailer who sells alcohol to a minor or to an intoxicated person. Ark. Code § 16-126-103; Ark. Code § 16-126-104. | Yes. An alcoholic beverage retailer may be held civilly liable for injury if it knowingly (or should have known) sold alcohol to a minor. Ark. Code § 16-126-103. | Yes. An alcoholic beverage retailer may be held civilly liable for injury if it knowingly (or should have known) sold alcohol to a clearly intoxicated person. Ark. Code § 16-126-104.
“Clearly intoxicated” defined as “so obviously intoxicated to the extent that * * * he or she presents a clear danger to others.” Ark. Code § 16-126-104. |
| CA | Dram shop civil liability is very limited in California. See Cal. Civ. § 1714.
|
Yes, but minor must have been “obviously intoxicated” and the alcohol must be the proximate cause of the injury or death. Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 25602.1.
|
No. Cal. Bus. & Prof. § 25602(b). |
| CO | A licensee may be held civilly liable for damages and/or injury only if it is proven that the licensee knowingly and willfully sold or served alcohol to a minor or a visibly intoxicated person.
Col. Rev. Stat. § 44-3-801 (emphasis added). |
Yes. Willful and knowing sale or service of alcohol to a minor. Col. Rev. Stat. § 44-3-801(3)(a)(I). | Yes. Willful and knowing sale or service of alcohol to a person visibly intoxicated. Col. Rev. Stat. § 44-3-801(3)(a)(I).
“Visibly intoxicated” not defined. |
| CT | Dram shop liability for sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person who causes injury to persons or property. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-102 | Does not distinguish, just states an “intoxicated person.” It is presumed to be present, however, as the statute states, “no cause of action against such seller for negligence in the sale of alcoholic liquor to a person twenty-one years of age or older.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-102. | Yes. Sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 30-102.
No definition of “intoxicated person.” |
| DE | No. Law only requires licensed establishments to refuse to sell alcohol to an intoxicated person and provides that there is no civil liability against the licensee from that refusal. Del. Code 4 § 706. | N/A | N/A |
| D.C. | D.C. law prohibits licensees from selling, delivering, or allowing consumption of alcohol on their premises of a minor, an intoxicated/visibly intoxicated person, or a notorious drunkard.
D.C. Code § 25-781. This law by itself does not create dram shop liability; however, over time courts have provided such an action under this statute. See, e.g., Casey v. McDonald’s Corp., 880 F.3d 564, 568 (D.C. Cir. 2018). See also Jarrett v. Woodward Bros., Inc., 751 A.2d 972, 980 (D.C. 2000). |
Yes, under case law. Jarrett v. Woodward Bros., Inc., 751 A.2d 972, 980 (D.C. 2000) (holding plaintiff had cause of action against bar that served alcohol to an underage person who later walked into traffic). | Yes, under case law. See, e.g., Casey v. McDonald’s Corp., 880 F.3d 564, 568 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (holding that plaintiff had cause of action against bar that served alcohol to an intoxicated person who then drunkenly assaulted and killed plaintiff’s son). See also Rong Yao Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Restaurant, Inc., 534 A.2d 1268, 1276 (D.C. 1987) (holding that plaintiff had cause of action against restaurant for serving visibly intoxicated person who later caused car accident and bodily injury). |
| FL | Provides liability for injury or damage as a result of the sale or furnishing of alcohol to minors or alcoholics. Fla. Stat. § 768.125. | Yes. “[W]illfully and unlawfully sells or furnishes” alcohol to persons not of the legal drinking age. Fla. Stat. § 768.125. | No. |
| GA | Limited liability. Dram shop liability is only available if the shop sold to a minor or intoxicated person who the shop knew was soon to be driving a motor vehicle. Ga. Code § 51-1-40. | Yes, but limited. “[W]illfully, knowingly, and unlawfully sells, furnishes, or serves” alcohol to an underage person who it is known will be driving a motorized vehicle soon. Ga. Code § 51-1-40(b).
Willfully, knowingly, or unlawfully can be countered by rebuttable proof that identification indicating the person was of legal age was presented. Ga. Code § 51-1-40(c). |
Yes, but limited. “[W]illfully, knowingly, and unlawfully sells, furnishes, or serves” alcohol to a “notic[ably]” intoxicated person who it is known will be driving a motorized vehicle soon. Ga. Code § 51-1-40(b). |
| HI | Hawai’i law prohibits the sale, service, or furnishing of alcohol to any minor, person under the influence of alcohol, person known to be addicted to excessive use of alcohol, or person who is purchasing to consume alcohol in a vehicle. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 281-78.
This law by itself does not create dram shop liability, but case law has provided such an action under this statute. See Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533, 537, 541 (Haw. 1980) (holding that plaintiff had a cause of action against a tavern for dram shop liability, even without a dram shop law, since the injury was caused by tavern’s violation of liquor control laws). |
Yes, under case law since sale, service, or furnishing of alcohol to a minor is a violation of Hawai’i’s liquor laws. See Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533, 537, 541 (Haw. 1980).
Violation for sale to a minor can be defeated if the “licensee was misled by the appearance of the minor and the attending circumstances into honestly believing that the minor was of legal age and the licensee acted in good faith.” Haw. Rev. Stat. § 281-78. |
Yes, under case law since sale, service, or furnishing of alcohol to a minor is a violation of Hawai’i’s liquor laws. See Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533, 537, 541 (Haw. 1980). |
| ID | Dram shop liability claims can only be brought if the business provided alcohol to a minor or to a person obviously intoxicated. Idaho Code § 23-808. | Yes, but limited. Only if the provider “knew or ought reasonably to have known” that the recipient was under legal drinking age. Idaho Code § 23-808(3)(a). | Yes, but limited. Only if the provider “knew or ought reasonably to have known that the intoxicated person was obviously intoxicated.” Idaho Code § 23-808(3)(b).
No definition of “obviously intoxicated” is provided. |
| IL | Very broad. “Every person who is injured within this State, in person or property, by any intoxicated person has a right of action in his or her own name, severally or jointly, against any person, licensed under the laws of this State or of any other state to sell alcoholic liquor, who, by selling or giving alcoholic liquor, within or without the territorial limits of this State, causes the intoxication of such person.” Ill. Comp. Stat. 235 § 5/6-21(a) (emphasis added). | Yes, since minors are logically encompassed in “any intoxicated person.” See Ill. Comp. Stat. 235 § 5/6-21(a). | Yes, since intoxicated persons are “any intoxicated person.” See Ill. Comp. Stat. 235 § 5/6-21(a).
“Intoxicated” not defined. |
| IN | Dram shop liability only available for bartering, delivering, selling, exchanging, providing or giving away of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person and the person’s intoxication was the proximate cause of the death, injury, or damage alleged. Ind. Code § 7.1-5-10-15.5. | Yes, under case law, but limited. See Estate of Cummings by Heck v. PPG Indus., Inc., 651 N.E.2d 305, 308 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (holding that the furnishing of alcohol to a minor provides a claim under the Dram Shop Act, but only if the minor was visibly intoxicated and the provider had actual knowledge of the visible intoxication). | Yes, but limited. The furnisher must have had “actual knowledge that the person to whom the alcoholic beverage was furnished was visibly intoxicated at the time.” Ind. Code § 7.1-5-10-15.5.
“Visibly intoxicated” is not defined. |
| IA | Dram shop liability claims can be brought against licensee who “sold and served” alcohol “directly” to an intoxicated person. Iowa Code § 123.92. | Does not say specifically, but logically, yes, if the minor was “visibly intoxicated.” See Iowa Code § 123.92(1)(a). | Yes, but the intoxicated person must be “visibly intoxicated.” Iowa Code § 123.92(1)(a).
“Visibly intoxicated” is not defined. |
| KS | Kansas has no dram shop liability law. See Ling v. Jan’s Liquors, 703 P.2d 731, 735–36 (Kan. 1985) (holding that no statutory or common law exists to create a claim of dram shop liability). See also Noone v. Chalet of Wichita, L.L.C., 96 P.3d 674, 678 (Kan. Ct. App. 2004) (recognizing and following the holding in Ling). | N/A | N/A |
| KY | Dram shop liability claims for the legal sale of alcohol can only be brought against licensee who sells or serves alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.241. | Yes, as affirmed by case law. See Sixty-Eight Liquors, Inc. v. Colvin, 118 S.W.3d 171, 175 (Ky. 2003) (holding that § 413.241 provides a valid claim of dram shop liability regarding the sale of alcohol to a minor because the statute’s general bar against dram shop liability for the sale of alcohol only applies to the legal sale of alcohol, not the illegal sale). | Yes, but limited. Claims can only be brought against a licensee if the sale or service of alcohol is to an intoxicated person and a “reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances should know that the person served is already intoxicated.” Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.241(2). |
| LA | Louisiana statute specifically bars dram shop liability related to the legal sale or service of alcohol by a licensee. La. Stat. § 9:2800.1. | Yes, as affirmed by case law. See Hopkins v. Sovereign Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 626 So.2d 880, 885–86 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1993) (holding § 9:2800.1 dram shop immunity does not protect in instances of a licensee providing alcohol to minors). | No. La. Stat. § 9:2800.1. |
| ME | Dram shop liability is provided for negligent or reckless service to minors and intoxicated individuals. Me. Rev. Stat. 28-A § 2506; 28-A § 2507. | Yes. Negligence: Liable if the server “knows or if a reasonable and prudent person in similar circumstances would know that the individual is a minor.” Me. Rev. Stat. 28-A § 2506.
Reckless: Liable if the server “knows that the individual being served is a minor.” Me. Rev. Stat. 28-A § 2507. |
Yes. Negligence: Liable if the server “knows or if a reasonable and prudent person in similar circumstances would know that the individual * * * is visibly intoxicated.” Me. Rev. Stat. 28-A § 2506.
Reckless: Liable is the server “knows” the person is “visibly intoxicated” and could pose a risk to others. Me. Rev. Stat. 28-A § 2507.
“Visibly intoxicated” is defined as “a state of intoxication accompanied by a perceivable act, a series of acts or the appearance of an individual which clearly demonstrates a state of intoxication.” Me. Rev. Stat. 28-A § 2503. |
| MD | Maryland has no dram shop liability law and no case law provides dram shop liability claims. See Felder v. Butler, 438 A.2d 494, 499 (Md. 1981) (holding that there is no action in tort against licensee absent a dram shop law). See also Fisher v. O’Connor’s, Inc., 452 A.2d 1313, 1314 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1982) (recognizing and following Felder). | N/A | N/A |
| MA | Massachusetts law prohibits the sale or delivery of alcohol to an intoxicated person, Mass. Gen. Laws 138 § 69, and to minors, Mass. Gen. Stat. § 34. These laws do not create dram shop liability, and the state does not otherwise have any statutory dram shop liability, however if a licensee violates either statute, they may be held liable under a general claim of common law negligence for subsequent injury to third parties. See Bennett v. Eagle Brook Country Store, Inc., 557 N.E.2d 1166, 1168 (Mass. 1990) (holding that proving common law negligence is necessary to hold a licensee liable for a violation of 138 § 69). | Only under common law negligence. See Mass. Gen. Stat. 231 § 60J (proscribing the procedure for such actions). See also Bennett v. Eagle Brook Country Store, Inc., 557 N.E.2d 1166, 1168 (Mass. 1990). | Only under common law negligence. See Mass. Gen. Stat. 231 § 60J (proscribing the procedure for such actions). See also Bennett v. Eagle Brook Country Store, Inc., 557 N.E.2d 1166, 1168 (Mass. 1990). |
| MI | Dram shop liability if the unlawful sale, furnishing, or providing of alcohol is proven to be a proximate cause of damage, injury, or death. Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801. | Yes. “A retail licensee shall not directly, individually, or by a clerk, agent, or servant sell, furnish, or give alcoholic liquor to a minor.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(2).
Defense is available for the providing of a Michigan license or personal identification card. Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(7). |
Yes. “A retail licensee shall not directly or indirectly, individually or by a clerk, agent, or servant sell, furnish, or give alcoholic liquor to a person who is visibly intoxicated.” Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(2).
“Visibly intoxicated” is not defined. |
| MN | Dram shop liability for the illegal sale of alcohol. Minn. Stat. § 340A.801. | Yes, because it is an illegal sale. Minn. Stat. § 340A.503.
Defense available if licensee, in good faith, “relied upon representations of proof of age authorized” under the statute. Minn. Stat. § 340A.503. |
Yes. Illegal to sell, give, furnish, or produce alcohol to “obviously intoxicated persons.” Minn. Stat. § 340A.502. |
| MS | Dram shop liability limited to sale of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person. Miss. Code § 67-3-73. | Not specifically provided for, but yes if the minor was “visibly intoxicated.” See Miss. Code § 67-3-73(4).
Possibly covered under the theory that sale to a minor is an illegal sale and the dram shop law liability limitation only covers legal sale of alcohol. See Miss. Code § 67-3-73(2). See also Miss. Code § 67-1-81. |
Yes. Liability limitation shall not apply to any person, agent, or employee of a license holder “when it is shown that the person making a purchase of an alcoholic beverage was at the time of such purchase visibly intoxicated.” Miss. Code § 67-3-73(4).
“Visibly intoxicated” not defined. |
| MO | Cause of action for dram shop liability is available regarding sale of alcohol to a minor or a visibly intoxicated person. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.053. | Yes. If proven by “clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.053(2).
“Proof that the seller or the seller’s agent or employee demanded and was shown a driver’s license or official state or federal personal identification card, appearing to be genuine and showing that the minor was at least twenty-one years of age, shall be relevant in determining the relative fault of the seller or seller’s agent or employee in the action.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.053(5). |
Yes. If proven by “clear and convincing evidence” that the seller “knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.053( 2).
“Visibly intoxicated” is defined as “inebriated to such an extent that the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.053(3). |
| MT | Dram shop liability for furnishing alcohol to a minor, a visibly intoxicated person, or the furnishing person forced or coerced the consumption or told the consumer that the beverage was non-alcoholic. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-710. | Yes. If the consumer was “under the legal drinking age and the furnishing person knew that the customer was underage or did not make a reasonable attempt to determine the consumer’s age.” Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-710(3)(a). | Yes. Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-710(3)(b).
“Visibly intoxicated” not defined. |
| NE | Dram shop liability limited to the sale of alcoholic liquor to a minor. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 53-404. | Yes. Available against the retailer who sold the alcohol if the injury, death, or damages was a proximate result of the negligence of an intoxicated minor. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 53-404.
Absolute defense available for this charge if “[t]he purchaser falsely represented in writing and supported with other documentary proof that he or she was of legal age,” the appearance of the purchaser was “such that an ordinary and prudent person would believe that such appearance conformed to any documentary description of appearance presented by the purchaser,” and the seller was acting in good faith in reliance on such representation. Also if the “seller was acting with the knowledge of and in cooperation with a duly authorized law enforcement officer.” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 53-180.07. |
No. |
| NV | Limited to the sale or furnishing of alcohol to a person under the age of 21. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.1305. | Yes. Available if person “[k]nowingly serves, sells or otherwise furnishes an alcoholic beverage to an underage person” or “[k]knowingly allows an underage person to consume an alcoholic beverage on premises or in a conveyance belonging to the person or over which the person has control.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.1305(2). | No. |
| NH | Fairly broad.
Dram shop liability for damages for the negligent service of alcohol to a minor or an intoxicated person. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-F:4.
Dram shop liability for damages for the reckless service of alcoholic beverages regardless of age or intoxication if “a defendant intentionally serves alcoholic beverages to a person when the server knows, or a reasonable person in his position should have known, that such service creates an unreasonable risk of physical harm to the drinker or to others that is substantially greater than which is necessary to make his conduct negligent.” N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-F:5. |
Yes. “Service of alcoholic beverages to a minor * * * is negligent if the defendant knows or it a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances would know that the person being served is a minor.” N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-F:4(II).
“Proof of service of alcoholic beverages to a minor without request for proof of age” is admissible as evidence of negligence. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-F:4(III). |
Yes. “Service of alcoholic beverages to * * * an intoxicated person is negligent if the defendant knows or it a reasonably prudent person in like circumstances would know that the person being served is * * * intoxicated.” N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-F:4(II).
“Intoxicated” is defined as a person whose mental or physical faculties are impaired as a result of “drug or alcoholic beverage use so as to diminish that person’s ability to think and act in a manner in which an ordinary prudent and cautious person, in full possession of his faculties and using reasonable care, would act under like circumstances.” N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507-F:1. |
| NJ | Dram shop liability for injury or damages for the negligent service of alcoholic beverages by a licensee if the injury or damage was proximately caused by the negligent service and was a foreseeable consequence. N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:22A-5(a).
Negligent service means “when the server served a visibly intoxicated person, or served a minor.” N.J. Stat. § 2A:22A-5(b). |
Yes. Available when the server served alcohol to a minor, “under circumstances where the server knew, or reasonably should have known, that the person served was a minor.” N.J. Stat. § 2A:22A-5(b). | Yes. N.J. Stat. § 2A:22A-5(b).
“Visibly intoxicated” is defined as “a state of intoxication accompanied by a perceptible act or series facts which present clear signs of intoxication.” N.J. Stat. § 2A:22A-3. |
| NM | Dram shop liability for sale or service to an intoxicated person and the negligent sale or giving of alcohol to a minor. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-11-1. | Yes. Licensee may be civilly liable for the negligent sale or giving of alcohol to a minor. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-11-1(F). See N.M. Stat. Ann. § 60-7B-1.
Determination of negligence includes circumstances such as “the representation used to obtain the alcoholic beverage.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-11-1(F). |
Yes. Dram shop liability if licensee sold or served alcohol to an intoxicated person, “it was reasonably apparent to the licensee that the person buying or apparently receiving” the alcohol was intoxicated, and “the licensee knew from the circumstances that the person buying or receiving service” of alcohol was intoxicated. N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-11-1(A).
“Intoxicated” is defined as mental and physical impairment due to alcohol so as to “substantially diminish that person’s ability to think and act in a manner in which an ordinary [ordinarily] prudent person, in full possession of his faculties, would think and act under like circumstances.” N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-11-1(D). |
| NY | Dram shop liability for injury or damage caused by intoxication of a person under the age of twenty-one or the unlawful selling or unlawful assisting in procuring alcohol to an intoxicated person. N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 11-100 (McKinney); N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 11-101 (McKinney). | Yes. Liability for “knowingly” causing intoxication or impairment of ability by “unlawfully furnishing to or unlawfully assisting in procuring alcoholic beverages for such person with knowledge or reasonable cause to believe that such person was under the age of twenty-one years.” N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 11-100(1) (McKinney). | Yes. Liability for “unlawfully selling to or unlawfully assisting in procuring liquor for such intoxicated person” which “caused or contributed to such intoxication.” N.Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 11-101(1).
“Intoxicated person” not defined. |
| NC | Fairly limited.
Dram shop liability for the negligent sale or furnishing of alcohol to an underage person if the consumption proximately caused or contributed to a motor vehicle accident where the underage consumer was driving. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 18B-121. |
Yes. If the sale or furnishing of alcohol to an underage person was negligent and the consumption “caused or contributed to” an underage driver’s legal impairment and the resulting injury was proximately caused by the underage driver’s negligent operation of a vehicle while impaired. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 18B-121. | No. |
| ND | Dram shop liability for the knowing disposal, sale, barter, or giving away of alcohol to a person under the age of twenty-one or to an incompetent or an obviously intoxicated person. N.D. Cent. Code § 5-01-06.1.
|
Yes. N.D. Cent. Code § 5-01-06.1(1).
It is a mitigating factor for liability if a retail licensee provided “alcohol server training that addressed intoxication, drunk driving, and underage drinking.” N.D. Cent. Code § 5-01-06.1(1).
Prima facie evidence of innocence for a licensee is constituted by: the purchaser falsely representing his or her age with supporting documents; the purchaser appeared of legal age to an ordinary and prudent person; the sale was made in good faith and in reliance on the false representation. N.D. Cent. Code § 5-01-08.2. |
Yes. N.D. Cent. Code § 5-01-06.1(1).
It is a mitigating factor for liability if a retail licensee provided “alcohol server training that addressed intoxication, drunk driving, and underage drinking.” N.D. Cent. Code § 5-01-06.1(1).
“Incompetent” and “Obviously intoxicated person” are not defined. |
| OH | Dram shop liability for damages, injury, or death if the damages, injury, or death occurred on the licensee’s property or in a parking lot controlled by the licensee and the licensee’s negligence was the proximate cause. Ohio Rev. Code § 4399.18.
Dram shop liability for damages, injury, or death by negligent intoxicated person off premises if the licensee knowingly sold alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated person or an underage person, and the intoxication proximately caused the damages, injury, or death. Ohio. Rev. Code § 4399.18. |
Yes, if the licensee knowingly sold alcohol to an underage person and the underage person’s intoxication was the proximate cause of the injury, death, or damages. Ohio Rev. Code § 4399.18. See also Ohio Rev. Code § 4301.69. | Yes, if the licensee knowingly sold alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated person and the person’s intoxication was the proximate cause of the injury, death, or damages. Ohio Rev. Code § 4399.18. See also Ohio Rev. Code § 4301.22.
“Noticeably intoxicated person” not defined. |
| OK | No statutory dram shop liability. Dram shop liability has been imposed by common law for the illegal sale, delivery, or furnishing of alcohol. See, e.g., Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., 725 P.2d 300 (Okla. 1986) (holding a cause of action imposing civil liability exists for the illegal sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person) (the statute making the sale illegal was repealed, but was replaced by an equal statute). This includes sale, delivery, or furnishing to minors, an intoxicated person, or “to any person who has been adjudged insane or mentally deficient.” Okla. Stat. 37A § 6-101. | Yes, via case law, as there is a duty of care imposed by the prohibition against providing alcohol to certain persons. See Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., 725 P.2d 300 (Okla. 1986) (holding a cause of action imposing civil liability exists for the illegal sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person).
Must be a knowing violation. Okla. Stat. 37A § 6-101(A)(1).
Prohibition against sale of alcohol to minors at Okla. Stat. 37A § 6-101(A)(1). |
Yes, via case law. See Brigance v. Velvet Dove Restaurant, Inc., 725 P.2d 300 (Okla. 1986) (holding a cause of action imposing civil liability exists for the illegal sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person).
Must be a knowing violation. Okla. Stat. 37A § 6-101(A)(2).
Prohibition against sale of alcohol to intoxicated person at Okla. Stat. 37A § 6-101(A)(2).
Intoxicated person not defined. |
| OR | Dram shop liability for service or providing of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person under particular conditions. Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565(2) (other section of statute barring claims by the injured, but visibly intoxicated patron held unconstitutional by Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc., 406 P.3d 66, 71–72 (Or. Ct. App. 2017).
Dram shop liability for service or providing alcohol to minors under particular conditions. Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.567(1). |
Yes, if it is “demonstrated that a reasonable person would have determined that identification should have been requested or that the identification exhibited was altered or did not accurately describe the person to whom the alcoholic liquor was sold or served.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.567(1). | Yes, if the service or providing of alcohol occurred while the patron was visibly intoxicated, and the plaintiff “did not substantially contribute to the intoxication of the patron” by such things as providing or furnishing the alcohol, encouraging the patron to purchase alcohol, or facilitating the consumption of alcohol. Or. Rev. Stat. § 471.565(2).
“Visibly intoxicated” not defined. |
| PA | Dram shop liability for the sale, furnishing, or giving of alcohol to a customer who was “visibly intoxicated.” Pa. Cons. Stat. 47 § 4-497.
Dram shop liability for the sale, furnishing, or giving of alcohol to a minor. Pa. Cons. Stat. 47 § 4-493(1). |
Yes. Pa. Cons. Stat. 47 § 4-493(1).
A violation of the Dram Shop Act is deemed negligence per se in Pennsylvania. See Juszczyszyn v. Taiwo, 113 A.3d 853, 858 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). See also Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 902 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 2018). |
Yes. Pa. Cons. Stat. 47 § 4-497; Pa. Cons. Stat. 47 § 4-493(1).
A violation of the Dram Shop Act is deemed negligence per se in Pennsylvania. See Juszczyszyn v. Taiwo, 113 A.3d 853, 858 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015). See also Encompass Ins. Co. v. Stone Mansion Rest. Inc., 902 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 2018).
“Visibly intoxicated” not defined. |
| RI | Dram shop liability for damages is available for the negligent service of liquor to a minor or a visibly intoxicated person if it is a proximate cause of the damages. R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-14-6.
Dram shop liability for damages is available for the reckless service of liquor to a minor or a visibly intoxicated person if it is a proximate cause of the damages. R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-14-7. |
Yes. R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-14-6(a); R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-14-7(a).
Service to a minor is negligent if the defendant “knows, or if a reasonable and prudent person in similar circumstances would know that the individual being served is a minor.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-14-6(c).
Proof that alcohol was served to a minor “without request for identification forms a rebuttable presumption of negligence.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-14-6(e).
Service is reckless if a “defendant intentionally serves liquor to an individual when the server knows that the individual being served is a minor * * * and the server consciously disregards an obvious and substantial risk that serving liquor to that individual will cause physical harm to the drinker or others.” R.I. Gen. Stat. § 3-14-7(c). |
Yes. R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-14-6(b); R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-14-7(b).
Service to an intoxicated person is negligent if the defendant “knows, or if a reasonable and prudent person in similar circumstances would know that the individual being served is * * * visibly intoxicated.” R.I. Gen. Laws § 3-14-6(c).
Service is reckless if a “defendant intentionally serves liquor to an individual when the server knows that the individual being served is * * * visibly intoxicated, and the server consciously disregards an obvious and substantial risk that serving liquor to that individual will cause physical harm to the drinker or others.” R.I. Gen. Stat. § 3-14-7(c).
“Visibly intoxicated” is defined as “a state of intoxication accompanied by a perceptible act or series of acts presenting an apparent sign or signs of intoxication.” R.I. Gen. Stat. § 3-14-3(i). |
| SC | South Carolina does not have a specific dram shop law, however, dram shop liability claims have been established and upheld in common law. See Jamison v. The Pantry, Inc., 392 S.E.2d 474, 476–77 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that the selling of alcohol to a minor made it reasonably foreseeable that the minor would drink the alcohol, become intoxicated, and cause a drunk driving accident, so as to uphold a claim of proximate cause). See also Steele v. Rogers, 413 S.E.2d 329, 331 (S.C. Ct. App. 1992) (explaining that the violation of liquor statutes constitutes negligence per se, but the sale must have a factual and causal link to the resulting injury). | Yes, via case law. See Jamison v. The Pantry, Inc., 392 S.E.2d 474, 476 –77 (S.C. Ct. App. 1990) (violation of liquor law banning sale of alcohol to minors was negligent and allowed for a liability claim against defendant seller).
Sale of liquor to a minor prohibited at S.C. Code § 61-4-580(A)(1). |
Yes, via case law. See Hartfield v. Getaway Lounge & Grill, Inc., 697 S.E.2d 558 (S.C. 2010) (involving liability claim for the sale of alcohol to an intoxicated person against S.C. law).
Sale of liquor to an intoxicated person prohibited at S.C. Code § 61-4-580(A)(2). |
| SD | No civil dram shop liability in statute or common law. | No. Violation of sale to minors is a misdemeanor only. S.D. Codified Laws § 35-4-79. | No. Sale or service of alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person by a licensee is a Class 1 misdemeanor, but there is no civil dram shop liability. S.D. Codified Laws § 35-4-78. |
| TN | Dram shop liability for sale to minor or visibly intoxicated person if the sale of alcohol was found to be the proximate cause of the resulting personal injury or death by a twelve person jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Tenn. Code § 57-10-102. | Yes, if the injury was directly caused by the consumption of the alcohol and the sale was to a person known to be under the age of twenty-one. Tenn. Code § 57-10-102. | Yes, if the injury was directly caused by the consumption of the alcohol and the sale was to a visibly intoxicated person. Tenn. Code § 57-10-102.
“Visibly intoxicated” not defined. |
| TX | Dram shop liability for the sale, service, or providing of alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person or a person under 18. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02. | Yes, if the intoxicating alcohol was sold or given to a minor under the age of 18 or allowed to be sold or given to a minor under the age of 18 on the premises. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02. | Yes, if at the time the alcohol was sold it was apparent to the provider that the recipient was “obviously intoxicated to the extent that he presented a clear danger to himself and others” and the intoxication was a proximate cause of the suffered damages. Tex. Alco. Bev. Code § 2.02. |
| UT | Dram shop liability if licensee directly gives, sells, or otherwise provides alcohol to: a person under 21; a person “apparently under the influence of intoxicating alcoholic products or drugs;” a person the furnisher “knew or should have known” was under the influence of alcohol or drugs; or a person who is a known interdicted person, and the resulting injury, death, or damage resulted due to the individual provided the alcohol. Utah Code § 32B-15-201. | Yes. Utah Code § 32B-15-201. | Yes, if person alcohol was provided to was “apparently under the influence” of alcohol or drugs, or the furnisher “knew or should have known” was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Utah Code § 32B-15-201.
“Under the influence” of alcohol or drugs not defined. |
| VT | Broad liability.
Wide variety of plaintiffs can bring a claim of dram shop liability for injury in property, person, or means of support if the injurer was intoxicated as a result of the sale or furnishing of alcohol to: a minor under 21, a person apparently under the influence of alcohol, a person served after legal serving hours, or a person reasonably expected to be intoxicated due to the amount of alcohol they were provided. Vt. Stat. 7 § 501. |
Yes, if under 21. Vt. Stat. 7 § 501. | Yes, either a person apparently under the influence of alcohol or reasonably expected to be under the influence of alcohol due to the amount of alcohol the person was provided. Vt. Stat. 7 § 501.
“Under the influence of alcohol” not defined. |
| VA | No dram shop liability in statute or common law. See Williamson v. Old Brogue, Inc., 350 S.E.2d 621, 623 (Va. 1986) (holding that “individuals, drunk or sober, are responsible for their own torts and that, apart from statute, drinking the intoxicant, not furnishing it, is the proximate cause of the injury.”). See also Robinson v. Matt Mary Morgan, Inc., 525 S.E.2d 559, 562 (Va. 2000) (reaffirming Williamson). | N/A | N/A |
| WA | There is no statute specifically establishing civil dram shop liability, however, case law has established such claims based on prohibitions against selling alcohol to minors and selling alcohol to persons apparently under the influence of alcohol. See Purchase v. Meyer, 737 P.2d 661, 666 (Wash. 1987) (holding that a third party can maintain a negligence per se claim against a commercial seller of alcohol who sold alcohol to a minor against the provisions of Washington law). See also Barrett v. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc., 96 P.3d 386, 393 (Wash. 2004) (holding that the sale of alcohol by a commercial seller to a person apparently under the influence of alcohol establishes a standard of civil liability against the seller by an injured third party). | Yes, under case law establishing that provision barring the sale of alcohol to minors establishes a duty of care that, if broken, allows for third party liability claim against a commercial alcohol purveyor. See Purchase v. Meyer, 737 P.2d 661, 666 (Wash. 1987) (holding that a third party can maintain a negligence per se claim against a commercial seller of alcohol who sold alcohol to a minor against the provisions of Washington law).
Provision barring sale of alcohol to minors located at Wash. Rev. Code § 66.44.270(1). |
Yes, under case law establishing that the provision barring the sale of alcohol to persons apparently under the influence of alcohol establishes a duty to care that, if broken, allows for third party liability claim against a commercial alcohol purveyor. See Barrett v. Lucky Seven Saloon, Inc., 96 P.3d 386, 393 (Wash. 2004) (holding that the sale of alcohol by a commercial seller to a person apparently under the influence of alcohol establishes a standard of civil liability against the seller by an injured third party).
Provision barring sale of alcohol to a person apparently under the influence of alcohol located at Wash. Rev. Code § 66.44.200(1).
“Apparently under the influence” of alcohol not defined. |
| WV | No specific dram shop liability statute. Civil dram shop liability is, however, established in case law for sale of alcohol to minors and sale of alcohol to anyone “physically incapacitated” by drinking. See Anderson v. Moulder, 394 S.E.2d 61, 67 (W. Va. 1990) (holding that the sale of alcohol to a minor in violation of statute gives rise to cause of action for dram shop liability in favor of those injured as a proximate cause of the sale). See also Bailey v. Black, 394 S.E.2d 58, 59 (W. Va. 1990) (holding that a cause of action for dram shop liability exists for injuries caused by the sale of alcohol to a person “physically incapacitated” against statute). | Yes, via case law. See Anderson v. Moulder, 394 S.E.2d 61, 67 (W. Va. 1990) (holding that the sale of alcohol to a minor in violation of statute gives rise to cause of action for dram shop liability in favor of those injured as a proximate cause of the sale).
Statute prohibiting sale of alcohol to minors at W. Va. Code § 11-16-18. |
Yes, via case law. See also Bailey v. Black, 394 S.E.2d 58, 59 (W. Va. 1990) (holding that a cause of action for dram shop liability exists for injuries caused by the sale of alcohol to a person “physically incapacitated” against statute).
Statute prohibiting sale of alcohol to persons “physically incapacitated” by alcohol at W. Va. Code § 11-16-18.
“Physically incapacitated” not defined in statute, but described in Bailey at 60 to mean “that the buyer exhibited some physical sign of drunkenness, such that reasonably prudent serving personnel could have known the buyer was drunk.”
|
| WI | Very limited dram shop liability.
Dram shop liability is only available if the provider of the alcohol causes the consumption by force or by falsely representing that a beverage has no alcohol in it, or, in the case of alcohol provided to a person under the legal drinking age, if the provider was negligent and the alcohol was a substantial factor in the resulting injury. Wis. Stat. § 125.035. |
Yes, only if the provider knew or should have known that the person was under the legal drinking age and the alcohol provided was a “substantial factor” in the third party injury. Wis. Stat. § 125.035. | No. See Wis. Stat. § 125.035. |
| WY | Liability of licensee for damages can only occur if the alcohol causing the intoxication was provided in violation of Wyoming’s alcoholic beverage control statutes. See Wyo. Stat. § 12-8-301. | Yes, because sale, furnishing, or giving alcohol to a minor is illegal, and dram shop immunity does not extend to illegal sales. See Wyo. Stat. § 12-8-301; Wyo. Stat. § 12-6-101. See also Daniels v. Carpenter, 62 P.3d 555, 563 (Wyo. 2003) (explaining that “where alcohol is illegally provided to a minor, the person providing the alcohol may become liable for injuries resulting from that minor’s resulting intoxication.”). | No. Not against provisions of law, so no dram shop liability. See Wyo. Stat. § 12-8-301. |
HoochLaw 