Dram Shop Acts Provide Injured Parties with Remedies Against Those Who Sell or Provide Alcohol to Others

I recently came across an article by Clifford Ward published in The Chicago Tribune on August 12, 2010. The article described a case against a West Chicago strip club, Diamond’s Gentlemen’s Club, brought by the surviving spouse of a woman killed in an auto accident by a drunk driver. Just minutes before the accident, employees of the club had placed the defendant in his vehicle along with a passenger. The woman who was killed was also pregnant. The drunk driver’s passenger also died in the accident.

Supreme Court of Illinois Finds Club Liable

Although it is unclear from the story, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled that the club bore some responsibility for the accident. This was true even though attorneys for the club argued that the club did not sell or provide alcohol to the drunk driver. There was evidence, however, that they knew he was intoxicated, because that was the reason the employees removed him from the premises. The case likely ended up in the high court due to summary judgment being granted to the club that the attorneys for the surviving spouse were successful in overturning. Once the high court ruled that the club bore some responsibility, discussions of settlement began, and the club settled for their policy limits of one million dollars. The estate of the deceased passenger was also successful in making a recovery against the club and shared in the settlement.

Idaho Alcoholic Beverage Statute Would Require Different Result

The Idaho “dram shop” statute is as follows:

Idaho Statutes

Title 23. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES

Chapter 8. ENFORCEMENT OF PENAL AND ABATEMENT PROVISIONS OF IDAHO LIQUOR ACT

Current through 2010 Regular Session

§ 23-808. LEGISLATIVE FINDING AND INTENT - CAUSE OF ACTION

(1) The legislature finds that it is not the furnishing of alcoholic beverages that is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons and it is the intent of the legislature, therefore, to limit dram shop and social host liability; provided, that the legislature finds that the furnishing of alcoholic beverages may constitute a proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons under the circumstances set forth in subsection (3) of this section.

(2) No claim or cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered injury, death or other damage caused by an intoxicated person against any person who sold or otherwise furnished alcoholic beverages to the intoxicated person, except as provided in subsection (3) of this section.

(3) A person who has suffered injury, death or any other damage caused by an intoxicated person, may bring a claim or cause of action against any person who sold or otherwise furnished alcoholic beverages to the intoxicated person, only if:

(a) The intoxicated person was younger than the legal age for the consumption of alcoholic beverages at the time the alcoholic beverages were sold or furnished and the person who sold or furnished the alcoholic beverages knew or ought reasonably to have known at the time the alcoholic beverages were sold or furnished that the intoxicated person was younger than the legal age for consumption of the alcoholic beverages; or

(b) The intoxicated person was obviously intoxicated at the time the alcoholic beverages were sold or furnished, and the person who sold or furnished the alcoholic beverages knew or ought reasonably to have known that the intoxicated person was obviously intoxicated.

(4) (a) No claim or cause of action pursuant to subsection (3) of this section shall lie on behalf of the intoxicated person nor on behalf of the intoxicated person's estate or representatives.

(b) No claim or cause of action pursuant to subsection (3) of this section shall lie on behalf of a person who is a passenger in an automobile driven by an intoxicated person nor on behalf of the passenger's estate or representatives.

(5) No claim or cause of action may be brought under this section against a person who sold or otherwise furnished alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person unless the person bringing the claim or cause of action notified the person who sold or otherwise furnished alcoholic beverages to the intoxicated person within one hundred eighty (180) days from the date the claim or cause of action arose by certified mail that the claim or cause of action would be brought.

(6) For the purposes of this section, the term "alcoholic beverage" shall include alcoholic liquor as defined in section 23-105, Idaho Code, beer as defined in section 23-1001, Idaho Code, and wine as defined in section 23-1303, Idaho Code.

The statute is an interesting one in that it states that the legislature specifically finds that it is not the furnishing of alcohol that is the proximate cause when one who is intoxicated injures another person. The statute sets up two instances in Section 3 (a) and (b) when liability will be found. The first involves intoxicated persons who are underage consumers of alcohol. In that situation the provider would be liable if it was obvious the person to whom they provided the alcohol was underage. The second situation finds liability when one furnishes alcohol to another who is obviously already intoxicated. Section 4(b) disallows claims by passengers of drunk drivers against providers.

It would appear that although the State of Idaho acknowledges that the providing of alcohol is not the proximate cause of injury, it is made a basis for liability. This would require a different result in the Illinois case since the club did not sell or provide alcohol to the drunk driver. The negligence in the Illinois case appeared to be based upon allowing or placing someone in a vehicle with the knowledge that the person was obviously too intoxicated to drive. It seems reasonable that the Idaho legislature would agree, but that is not how the statute reads in section 3.

Bob Jacobson is a personal injury attorney in Boise, Idaho