Dramshop Acts

Dramshop Acts

Statutes, also called civil liability acts, that impose civil liability upon one who sells intoxicating liquors when a third party has been injured as a result of the purchaser's intoxication and such sale has either caused or contributed to the state of intoxication.

A dramshop is any type of drinking establishment where liquor is sold for consumption on the premises, such as a bar, a saloon, or, in some cases, a restaurant. Under dramshop acts, the seller of liquor can be sued by an individual who is injured by an intoxicated person. Such acts protect the injured third party not only against personal injuries and property damages resulting directly from the actions of the intoxicated individual (such as those resulting from drunken driving or Assault and Battery) but also against the loss of family support owing to such injuries. Generally, the person who became intoxicated cannot sue the seller if she or he is injured, nor can any active participant in the drinking.

The dramshop laws are based on the principle that anyone who profits from the sale of alcoholic beverages should be held liable for any resulting damages. For a seller to be held liable, it is unnecessary to show that he or she is negligent, provided it is proved that the seller sold liquor to a habitual drunkard or a person who was already drunk, which is generally illegal in itself.

Dramshop acts originated in the Temperance Movement of the mid-1800s. In Illinois, for example, the first such law was passed in 1872 and amended in subsequent decades. By the 1990s, more than forty states had either dramshop acts or court rulings that made a commercial server or seller of alcohol liable if an intoxicated customer caused an accident or injury upon leaving the server's or seller's establishment (e.g., the Iowa Alcoholic Beverage Control Act [Iowa Code Ann. § 123.92 (West)]). Typical modern statutes include limitations on awards, specifications regarding the commercial defendant's type and degree of liability, and a Statute of Limitations.

By the late 1980s, dramshop statutes and court rulings had caused a dramatic increase in lawsuits involving liquor liability, with a corresponding increase in damage awards to victims. As a result, liquor liability insurance became increasingly expensive and difficult to obtain.

To guard against costly dramshop suits, liquor vendors have taken a variety of steps to prevent negligent behavior: eliminating "happy hours," reducing late-night operation, offering free Breathalyzer tests, instituting designateddriver programs, and training servers on how to deal with intoxicated patrons. Several states have made precautions such as these mandatory. Some, such as Oklahoma, have banned happy hours (see 37 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 537 [West]); others have required server training. Many insurance companies either require such preventive measures or offer incentives for their use.

Many states have extended dramshop liability to corporate or individual social hosts who provide alcoholic beverages without charge. This new source of liability has produced an extraordinary number of lawsuits. Accordingly, individuals wishing to host a social or business function in one of these states would now be required to take many of the same precautions commercial establishments do, including obtaining liquor liability insurance, or else they would have to hold their gathering at an insured bar or hotel.

Further readings

Allen, Jeffrey Wynn. 1994. "Illinois Dram Shop Reform." John Marshall Law Review 28 (fall).

Fancher, Catherine. 1993. "One Too Many? … Dram Shop Act…." Texas Tech Law Review 25.

Smith, Jacob D. 2002. "Rethinking a Broker's Legal Obligations to its Customers—The Dramshop Cases." Securities Regulation Law Journal 30 (spring): 51–95.

Smith, Richard. 2000."A Comparative Analysis of Dramshop Liability and a Proposal for Uniform Legislation." The Journal of Corporation Law 25 (spring): 553–89.

Weiss, Ann E. 1987. The Supreme Court. Springfield, N.J.: Enslow.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Mentioned in ?
References in periodicals archive ?
Under dramshop acts, serving alcohol to a minor, or permitting a minor to consume alcohol on the premises, constitutes a misdemeanor.
The dramshop acts, which most Northeastern and midwestern states passed between the 1840s and 1880s, enabled third parties harmed by individuals' drinking to recover damages from whomever had sold alcohol to them.
If saloonkeepers did not heed the notices, wives had several options in the courts, one of which was to bring a suit under their states' dramshop acts. District judges and juries were extremely sympat hetic to drinkers' wives suing saloonkeepers, and they seem to have usually won their cases in the first instance, though the decisions were often overturned on appeal.
The very structure and intent of the dramshop acts challenged drinker's control of their "business" still further.
(12.) In some states, "dramshop acts" were known as "civil damage acts." Ernest Hurst Cherrington (ed), "Civil Damage Laws," in Standard Encyclopedia of the Alcohol Problem (Westerville, OH, 1925-30), 617.
Dramshop act trial testimony gives us a window into the substance of these identities.
Though presumably most drinkers' wives who brought suit under a dramshop act did not read this particular ar ticle, they acted as it advised.
[56] On the whole, the drinkers' wives in dramshop act trials were a tough bunch of women.