Lets talk about a dirty little secret called downplaying the role of personal responsibility. Social host liability is an area of law that grew out of the DramshopActs. Dramshop acts were created to hold bartenders liable to people who were injured by other people who drank too much at the bar. Nothing has been called a dramshop for a long time, so these acts were created when people were still riding horses…totally off topic, but if you ride a horse drunk can you really do much more than just fall off and injure yourself?
I’m pretty sure, after 12 beers that I can convince my Jeep that it can beat that speeding train to the crossing. I have a hard time believing I could do the same with a horse. Just a thought.
back on topic…Dramshop was around for a longtime, and around the 70’s courts started extending liability to social hosts. That means YOU. That Superbowl Kegger you threw last weekend where Cousin Jeb accidentally stepped into the toilet while Grandma Adams was still using it, and then decided to drive home, but only got as far as your backyard. If Jeb had managed to kill more than just the hose dolly, and the bitchin black paint on the bumper of his 84 Mustang, you’d be liable for the damage he caused. Why? Because you bought the booze, and didn’t cut him off when he ”looked” drunk.
Trust me…the judge does not want to hear…
“But your honor, Jeb always has a little vomit in his hair, and is always wearing those pee stained, skoal marked, boot cut levi’s. How am I supposed to tell when he’s had too much? It’s his trademark, and his surefire lady collector.”
BUT FEAR NOT GENTLE PEOPLE! BEHOLD….Enacted in 1978 I GIVE YOU CALIFORNIA LAW!
California Business and Professions Code
§ 25602. Sales to drunkard or intoxicated person; offense; civil liability
(a) Every person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage to any habitual or common drunkard or to any obviously intoxicated person is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(b) No person who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold, furnished, or given away, any alcoholic beverage pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section shall be civilly liable to any injured person or the estate of such person for injuries inflicted on that person as a result of intoxication by the consumer of such alcoholic beverage.
(c) The Legislature hereby declares that this section shall be interpreted so that the holdings in cases such as Vesely v. Sager (5 Cal.3d 153), Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (16 Cal.3d 313) and Coulter v. Superior Court; be abrogated in favor of prior judicial interpretation finding the consumption of alcoholic beverages rather than the serving of alcoholic beverages as the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.
Mark one up for personal responsibility, so hand that drunk bastard another beer, and remember if your gonna drink and drive, drive fast so you can get off the roads quicker. Wait no…that sounds irresponsible let me try again… and remember if you can drink and drive then chances are you haven’t drunk enough. I think that last one really nailed it…expect to see that in a national drunkard awareness campaign soon.
TIME TO DRINK
WEST NOTES BELOW (a.k.a. the boring stuff that only those opening alcoholic manufacturing establishments might find interesting.)
Statutes (this section and Civ.C. § 1714) aimed at immunizing nonlicensed providers of alcoholic beverages from civil liability for injuries attributable to intoxication is constitutional in view of fact that the general rule of immunity is founded on a possible rational basis and reasonably related to a legitimate state purpose. Cory v. Shierloh (1981) 174 Cal.Rptr. 500, 29 Cal.3d 430, 629 P.2d 8. Intoxicating Liquors 
283
Under California law as it existed at time of accident on July 8, 1971, liability of vendor who furnished alcoholic beverages to customer later involved in accident was limited to situation where patron was obviously intoxicated, both for purposes of common-law negligence cause of action and for purposes of the “obviously intoxicated” provision of this section. Gonzales v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.)1979, 589 F.2d 465. Intoxicating Liquors 285; Intoxicating Liquors 286
Statute immunizing innkeepers for sales to drunkard or intoxicated person does not preclude all actions against innkeepers merely because they furnish alcohol. Cantwell v. Peppermill, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 246, 25 Cal.App.4th 1797, review denied. Intoxicating Liquors 285
Statute immunizing innkeeper for sales to drunkard or intoxicated person generally immunizes establishment from liability for injuries to third parties resulting from furnishing of alcohol to patrons, permitting its patrons to consume alcoholic beverages on premises, or failing to prevent or prohibit its patrons from drinking alcoholic beverages and encouraging use of premises for drinking. Cantwell v. Peppermill, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 246, 25 Cal.App.4th 1797, review denied. Intoxicating Liquors 285
This section making it misdemeanor to sell alcoholic beverage to any “obviously intoxicated person” forbids sale to any such person regardless of substance or combination of substances which brought on such condition. Rice v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (App. 2 Dist. 1981) 173 Cal.Rptr. 232, 118 Cal.App.3d 30. Intoxicating Liquors 161
This section providing that sale of alcoholic beverage to intoxicated person is misdemeanor has no extraterritorial effect that would be applicable to Nevada tavern owners. Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 16 Cal.3d 313, 546 P.2d 719, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 159, 429 U.S. 859, 50 L.Ed.2d 136. Courts 29
Fact that this section providing that sale of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons is misdemeanor was not applicable to Nevada tavern owners so as to warrant imposition of civil liability on basis of its violation, did not preclude recovery on basis of negligence apart from the statute. Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 16 Cal.3d 313, 546 P.2d 719, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 159, 429 U.S. 859, 50 L.Ed.2d 136. Intoxicating Liquors 285
Although bartender who serves alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated patron violates the criminal law, the patron likewise violates criminal law by being drunk in a public place thereby putting parties in a classic instance of pari delicto precluding recovery by patron against bartender. Cooper v. National R. R. Passenger Corp. (App. 2 Dist. 1975) 119 Cal.Rptr. 541, 45 Cal.App.3d 389. Intoxicating Liquors 295
The term “obviously intoxicated” was not too broad or subjective to serve as a satisfactory measure for imposition of civil liability on one who served intoxicating liquors to a person who was obviously intoxicated and who later injured a third party; the use of intoxicating liquors by the average person in such quantity as to produce intoxication caused many commonly known outward manifestations which were “plain” and “easily seen or discovered;” if those manifestations existed and the seller still served a customer, he had violated the law whether because of his failure to observe what was plain and easily seen or discovered or because, having observed, he ignored that which was apparent. Coulter v. Superior Court of San Mateo County (1978) 145 Cal.Rptr. 534, 21 Cal.3d 144, 577 P.2d 669. Intoxicating Liquors 286
No civil liability may be imposed on one who furnishes alcoholic beverages to a minor who is not obviously intoxicated and, therefore, owners of establishment which allegedly sold liquor to minor who was not intoxicated, but who subsequently provided it to minor driver who was involved in automobile accident which injured passenger, were immune from liability to passenger; disapproving Burke v. Superior Court,129 Cal.App.3d 570, 181 Cal.Rptr. 149. Strang v. Cabrol (1984) 209 Cal.Rptr. 347, 37 Cal.3d 720, 691 P.2d 1013. Intoxicating Liquors 286
Term “minor” in § 25602.1 excepting sales to obviously intoxicated minors from statutory immunity of licensed alcoholic beverage dealers from claims by third parties injured as result of those to whom intoxicants are sold refers to persons under the age of 21. Rogers v. Alvas (App. 1 Dist. 1984) 207 Cal.Rptr. 60, 160 Cal.App.3d 997. Intoxicating Liquors 299
Use of alcohol and its effect required to place person in violation of Veh.C. §§ 23102, 23126, i.e., under influence of intoxicating liquor is substantially less than that required to be obviously intoxicated for purposes of this section making it misdemeanor to furnish alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated person. Paula v. Gagnon (App. 1 Dist. 1978) 146 Cal.Rptr. 702, 81 Cal.App.3d 680. Intoxicating Liquors 161
Imposition upon Nevada corporation of civil liability to California resident for injuries sustained by the California resident in single-vehicle accident which occurred in Nevada allegedly as a result of the foreign corporation’s negligent serving of alcoholic beverages to the driver of the vehicle, a Nevada resident, would impair the interests of the state of Nevada more significantly than the denial of such liability would impair the interests of California and, therefore, Nevada law denying liability of tavernkeepers for injury caused by customers governed, precluding recovery by the injured California resident, who was a passenger in the vehicle. Cable v. Sahara Tahoe Corp. (App. 2 Dist. 1979) 155 Cal.Rptr. 770, 93 Cal.App.3d 384. Courts 8
California law would be applied to determine whether Nevada tavern owners who actively solicited California business would be liable to California resident for injuries which were proximately caused by tavern owner’s selling alcoholic beverages to intoxicated patrons who subsequently caused automobile accident in California resulting in injuries to California resident. Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 16 Cal.3d 313, 546 P.2d 719, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 159, 429 U.S. 859, 50 L.Ed.2d 136. Action 17; Intoxicating Liquors 288
Enactment of Bus. & Prof.C. §§ 25602 and 25602.1 and Civ.C. § 1714 immunizing, except with respect to sale of intoxicants to obviously intoxicated minors, a licensed liquor dealer from liability to the third parties injured by those to whom intoxicants are sold is a matter well within the province of the legislature. Rogers v. Alvas (App. 1 Dist. 1984) 207 Cal.Rptr. 60, 160 Cal.App.3d 997. Intoxicating Liquors 283
Licensee has no inherent right to sell alcoholic beverages and engaging in such business may legitimately be subject to rigid conditions which will limit the possibilities of sales to minors. Farah v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (App. 1958) 159 Cal.App.2d 335, 324 P.2d 98. Intoxicating Liquors 6
Intent of legislature in amending Civ.Code § 1714 and Bus. & Prof.Code § 25602 was to create a broad statutory immunity against civil liability for social hosts who furnish alcoholic beverages to any person. Bass v. Pratt (App. 1 Dist. 1986) 222 Cal.Rptr. 723, 177 Cal.App.3d 129, review denied. Intoxicating Liquors 283
This section was designed to protect members of general public from injury resulting from excessive use of intoxicating liquors and customers in taverns are members of that public for whose benefit this section was enacted. Kindt v. Kauffman (App. 3 Dist. 1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 603, 57 Cal.App.3d 845. Intoxicating Liquors 161
This section was enacted for the purpose of protecting members of general public from injuries to person and danger to property resulting from excessive use of intoxicating liquor. Vesely v. Sager (1971) 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 5 Cal.3d 153, 486 P.2d 151.
Section 62 of Alcoholic Beverages Control Act (Stats.1935, c. 330, p. 1151, § 62; now this section), which made it a misdemeanor to sell alcoholic beverages to an “obviously intoxicated person” was not adopted for benefit of intoxicated person, in view of declaration in another section that primary purpose of act involved in the highest degree the economic, social, and moral well-being and safety of state and of all its people. Hitson v. Dwyer (App. 3 Dist. 1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 803, 143 P.2d 952. Action 5
Statute providing that no person who furnishes alcoholic beverage shall be civilly liable to injured person or injured person’s estate for injuries inflicted as result of intoxication by consumer of beverage bars suit against those who simply permit consumption of alcoholic beverages on their premises as well as against those who supply alcohol. Leong v. San Francisco Parking, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1991) 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 41, 235 Cal.App.3d 827. Intoxicating Liquors 302
Statute providing that no person who furnishes alcoholic beverage shall be civilly liable to any injured person for injuries inflicted as result of intoxication by consumer of beverage precluded imposition of liability on baseball team and parking corporation on claim that they had provided alcoholic beverages for consumption on parking lot premises, thereby proximately causing victim’s death by intoxicated driver “who became intoxicated at [park] and in said parking lot.” Leong v. San Francisco Parking, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1991) 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 41, 235 Cal.App.3d 827. Intoxicating Liquors 299; Intoxicating Liquors 302
Survivors of victim killed by allegedly intoxicated driver could not hold city, baseball team or parking corporation liable for simply permitting driver to consume alcoholic beverages on their premises. Leong v. San Francisco Parking, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1991) 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 41, 235 Cal.App.3d 827. Intoxicating Liquors 302
Statutory immunity from civil liability for merely furnishing alcohol to intoxicated person, who then injures someone else because of intoxication, extends to parking lot attendants, and their employers, who merely return vehicle keys to intoxicated drivers; in such circumstances, return of keys simply concludes bailment arrangement between driver of the car and parking lot company. Williams v. Saga Enterprises, Inc. (App. 2 Dist. 1990) 274 Cal.Rptr. 901, 225 Cal.App.3d 142, review denied. Intoxicating Liquors 299
Action by injured passenger against homeowners and hosts of party where alcoholic beverages were allegedly sold to intoxicated driver was barred by civil immunity for providers of alcoholic beverages, since cause of action was not within exception of Bus. & Prof.C. § 25602.1 providing for liability of liquor licensees who sold alcoholic beverages to obviously intoxicated minors. Baker v. Sudo (App. 4 Dist. 1987) 240 Cal.Rptr. 38, 194 Cal.App.3d 936, review denied. Intoxicating Liquors 299
There was sufficient connection between employment or employer’s Christmas party which employee attended and employee’s negligent act in driving home from the party in intoxicated condition and becoming involved in automobile accident so as to justify holding the employer financially responsible for the injuries occasioned by the employee’s accident, although the accident occurred away from the employer’s premises and presumably after work, in view of fact that it could have been inferred that the party was for the benefit of the employer, purpose of party was to improve employer/employee relations or to increase the continuity of employment by providing employees with fringe benefit of party, employer intended for employee to attend the party, and employer intended for employee to consume alcohol. Harris v. Trojan Fireworks Co. (App. 4 Dist. 1981) 174 Cal.Rptr. 452, 120 Cal.App.3d 157. Automobiles 197(2)
Tavern owner may have been civilly liable to third person for injuries proximately caused by former by selling or furnishing alcoholic beverages to intoxicated patron who inflicted injuries on latter. Bernhard v. Harrah’s Club (1976) 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 16 Cal.3d 313, 546 P.2d 719, certiorari denied 97 S.Ct. 159, 429 U.S. 859, 50 L.Ed.2d 136. Intoxicating Liquors 302
Motorist on highway whose vehicle was struck by an allegedly intoxicated driver to whom defendant tavern owner had sold liquor was within the class of persons for whose protection this section which made it a misdemeanor to sell liquor to an intoxicated person was enacted and the injuries plaintiff driver suffered resulted from occurrence that this section was designed to prevent thereby fastening liability on tavern owner in event of proper proof. Vesely v. Sager (1971) 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 5 Cal.3d 153, 486 P.2d 151. Intoxicating Liquors 283
Although proprietor of place where intoxicating liquors are dispensed is not insurer of its patrons’ safety, he has duty of care to protect patrons from reasonably foreseeable criminal or tortious conduct of third persons. Cantwell v. Peppermill, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 246, 25 Cal.App.4th 1797, review denied. Negligence 1024
Bartender and his employer did not have duty to act on inebriated customer’s request to arrange transportation home and could not be held liable for customer’s death when he was struck by motor vehicle after leaving bar, absent showing that bartender and employer had special relationship with customer that would give rise to such duty; although customer had been going to bar for two or three months prior to his death and bartender had arranged a ride for him on two other occasions, customer did not rely on any alleged duty to provide ride, but rather left bar. andrews v. Wells (App. 3 Dist. 1988) 251 Cal.Rptr. 344, 204 Cal.App.3d 533, review denied. Automobiles 197(1)
Franchisor of convenience store had no statutorily prescribed duty to provide specified safeguards or precautions in respect to sale of alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated minor in its role as franchisor. Wickham v. Southland Corp. (App. 4 Dist. 1985) 213 Cal.Rptr. 825, 168 Cal.App.3d 49. Intoxicating Liquors 285
Although fraternal lodge might restrict its serving of alcoholic beverages to its members, such circumstance alone, if in fact existing, was not reason to require lodge to be its “brother’s keeper” or to impose on lodge duty of care higher than that imposed on ordinary dispenser of alcoholic beverages. Venzor v. Santa Barbara Elks Lodge, No. 613 (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 128 Cal.Rptr. 353, 56 Cal.App.3d 209. Intoxicating Liquors 299
Fact that a third party has a cause of action against the server of alcoholic beverages for violation of duty under this section not to furnish them to an obviously intoxicated person does not alter existing rule of nonliability of server to drinker. Cooper v. National R. R. Passenger Corp. (App. 2 Dist. 1975) 119 Cal.Rptr. 541, 45 Cal.App.3d 389. Intoxicating Liquors 297
This section declaring person selling alcoholic beverage to obviously intoxicated person guilty of misdemeanor placed duty on seller to use his powers of observation to such extent as to see and hear what was easily seen and heard under existing circumstances before serving intended purchaser, but seller was not required to subject purchaser to tests which would disclose symptoms of intoxication not readily apparent to anyone having normal powers of observation by sight, hearing, and smell. People v. Johnson (Super. 1947) 81 Cal.App.2d Supp. 973, 185 P.2d 105. Intoxicating Liquors 161
Where commonly known outward manifestations of person’s intoxication exist, one selling alcoholic beverage to such person violated law, whether sale was made because of failure to observe what was plain and easily seen and discovered or because seller ignored that which was apparent after observation. People v. Johnson (Super. 1947) 81 Cal.App.2d Supp. 973, 185 P.2d 105. Intoxicating Liquors 161
West’s Ann.Cal.Civ.Code § 1714 and West’s Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § 25602 immunized social hosts against civil liability for furnishing alcoholic beverages to intoxicated minor, despite claim that minor was possessed of exceptional mental or physical condition by reason of his youth or inexperience so as to make social hosts liable under exception to the statutes. Bass v. Pratt (App. 1 Dist. 1986) 222 Cal.Rptr. 723, 177 Cal.App.3d 129, review denied. Intoxicating Liquors 299
1978 Amendment of Civ.C. § 1714 and Bus. & Prof. C. §§ 25602 and 25602.1 reinstating rule that consumption, not furnishing, of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication and providing that no social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to any person shall be held legally accountable for damages or injury resulting from consumption of such beverages abrogated common-law liability in area of consumption of alcoholic beverages by competent adults. Andre v. Ingram (App. 2 Dist. 1985) 210 Cal.Rptr. 150, 164 Cal.App.3d 206. Intoxicating Liquors 291; Intoxicating Liquors 299
Evidence in action alleging social host negligence in providing alcohol to an obviously intoxicated person raised issues of fact whether hosts served alcoholic beverages to person and as to his state of intoxication, obvious or otherwise, precluding summary judgment. Clendening v. Shipton (App. 4 Dist. 1983) 196 Cal.Rptr. 654, 149 Cal.App.3d 191. Judgment 181(33)
A social host who furnished alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person under circumstances which created a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to others might have been held legally accountable to those third persons who were injured when that harm occurred. Coulter v. Superior Court of San Mateo County (1978) 145 Cal.Rptr. 534, 21 Cal.3d 144, 577 P.2d 669. Intoxicating Liquors 299
Motorcyclist’s claims for negligence, assault, battery, negligent hiring, and products liability against retailer of intoxicating beverages, following accident in which intoxicated driver caused injury to motorcyclist, were barred by this section; proximate cause of injuries arising from consumption of alcohol was the consumption, not its service. Hepe v. Paknad (App. 6 Dist. 1988) 244 Cal.Rptr. 823, 199 Cal.App.3d 412, review denied. Intoxicating Liquors 299
In absence of showing to contrary, the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication was not the wrongful sale of liquor to the intoxicated person, but the drinking of liquor so purchased. Burke v. Superior Court, San Diego County (App. 4 Dist. 1982) 181 Cal.Rptr. 149, 129 Cal.App.3d 570.
Subds. (b) and (c) of this section making the consumption of alcoholic beverages the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, not the furnishing of such beverages by itself or the management of one’s property, bars a suit by an intoxicated consumer as well as by third persons injured by him. Cory v. Shierloh (1981) 174 Cal.Rptr. 500, 29 Cal.3d 430, 629 P.2d 8. Intoxicating Liquors 297
Neither customer nor his heirs are prevented from recovering damages from bartender on ground that consumption of alcohol rather than serving of it was proximate cause of injuries. Paula v. Gagnon (App. 1 Dist. 1978) 146 Cal.Rptr. 702, 81 Cal.App.3d 680. Intoxicating Liquors 291
In absence of statute, the sale of intoxicating liquor was not deemed to be the proximate cause of injuries received by buyer because of his intoxication. Paula v. Gagnon (App. 1 Dist. 1978) 146 Cal.Rptr. 702, 81 Cal.App.3d 680.
Where saloon patron was fatally injured in fall while engaging in fisticuffs in saloon when he became belligerent after he had become intoxicated in the saloon, patron’s surviving widow and minor children could not recover for alleged negligent furnishing of intoxicating liquor to patron on ground that such negligent furnishing proximately caused patron’s death. Cole v. Rush (1955) 45 Cal.2d 345, 289 P.2d 450. Intoxicating Liquors 295
Unless alleged violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Act provision making it misdemeanor to sell alcoholic beverage to obviously intoxicated person, by defendants in selling liquor to plaintiff while obviously intoxicated at bar in defendants’ tavern, was proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries when he fell from movable stool and subsequently dragged on floor by defendants, such violation would not make defendants liable for plaintiff’s injuries. Hitson v. Dwyer (App. 3 Dist. 1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 803, 143 P.2d 952. Intoxicating Liquors 291
In absence of statute, the sale of intoxicating liquor was not deemed to be the proximate cause of injuries received by buyer because of his intoxication. Hitson v. Dwyer (App. 3 Dist. 1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 803, 143 P.2d 952. Intoxicating Liquors 291
In absence of showing to contrary, the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication was not the wrongful sale of liquor to the intoxicated person, but the drinking of liquor so purchased. Hitson v. Dwyer (App. 3 Dist. 1943) 61 Cal.App.2d 803, 143 P.2d 952. Intoxicating Liquors 291
Bar owner was not liable to motorcyclist for injuries sustained in automobile accident with intoxicated driver who had been served alcohol at bar, due to immunity provided by this section, even if bar owner had known that driver was alcoholic, and that service of alcohol would render him incompetent and disabled. Hepe v. Paknad (App. 6 Dist. 1988) 244 Cal.Rptr. 823, 199 Cal.App.3d 412, review denied. Intoxicating Liquors 299
For bartender to be liable for injury or death from vehicle accident, it is necessary not only that he serve obviously intoxicated person but also that he know or should know that customer is going to drive motor vehicle on public highway. Paula v. Gagnon (App. 1 Dist. 1978) 146 Cal.Rptr. 702, 81 Cal.App.3d 680. Intoxicating Liquors 285
That employer refrained from preventing employee, who was known to drink heavily, from drinking to excess on employer’s premises while off duty, drinking beverage supplied by another off-duty employee, was not a violation of this section and did not render employer liable for injuries to third parties in automobile accident involving employee as he returned home. Calrow v. Appliance Industries, Inc. (App. 2 Dist. 1975) 122 Cal.Rptr. 636, 49 Cal.App.3d 556. Intoxicating Liquors 285
Act of waitress in serving beer to intoxicated person and her knowledge were imputable to the licensee. Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1965) 43 Cal.Rptr. 633, 62 Cal.2d 589, 400 P.2d 745. Intoxicating Liquors 168
Where decedent, allegedly having become intoxicated, was faced with choice of either driving home or seeking assistance and, by choosing to drive home, acted unreasonably in face of known risk, such conduct fell squarely within area merged into system of comparative negligence, and assumption of risk doctrine was not shown to be applicable. Paula v. Gagnon (App. 1 Dist. 1978) 146 Cal.Rptr. 702, 81 Cal.App.3d 680. Landlord And Tenant 295
Even though server may be negligent and in violation of law by continuing to serve alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated drinker, injured drinker’s cause of action against server is barred by his voluntary assumption of the known and conspicuous risks incident to consumption of alcohol including the risk that the bartender will negligently fail to recognize drinker’s obviously intoxicated condition. Cooper v. National R. R. Passenger Corp. (App. 2 Dist. 1975) 119 Cal.Rptr. 541, 45 Cal.App.3d 389. Intoxicating Liquors 295
Plaintiff was guilty of willful misconduct in driving automobile on roads with dangerous curves after drinking 27 ounces of whiskey and four ounces of tequila in less than two hours, and thus could not recover against either bartender or noncommercial provider of alcohol for injuries he sustained when his automobile left the road, despite contention that he was an “inexperienced” drinker. Trenier v. California Inv. and Development Corp. (App. 2 Dist. 1980) 164 Cal.Rptr. 156, 105 Cal.App.3d 44. Intoxicating Liquors 295
Survivors of motorist who died in an automobile accident caused by his own drunken driving and his consequent violation of a traffic law could not take an award of damages from proprietor of bar where motorist was served drinks while he was obviously intoxicated just before accident. Sissle v. Stefenoni (App. 1 Dist. 1979) 152 Cal.Rptr. 56, 88 Cal.App.3d 633. Intoxicating Liquors 295
Questions of willful misconduct in cases involving alleged intoxication are for jury to decide, and, where complaint did not reveal willful misconduct as matter of law, it was question of fact whether customer who drove while allegedly intoxicated was guilty of willful misconduct. Paula v. Gagnon (App. 1 Dist. 1978) 146 Cal.Rptr. 702, 81 Cal.App.3d 680. Intoxicating Liquors 316
Tavern customer who became intoxicated as a result of tavern keeper’s willful misconduct in serving him alcoholic liquors which subsequently caused customer’s involvement in automobile collision with injury to himself had no cause of action against tavern keeper since customer had knowingly engaged in willful misconduct in becoming intoxicated. Kindt v. Kauffman (App. 3 Dist. 1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 603, 57 Cal.App.3d 845. Intoxicating Liquors 295
A minor, or alcoholic who suffers from irresistible and pathological urge to drink excessively may, in fact, be physically ill and incapable of self-control, and thus under certain extremely limited and extraordinary circumstances not guilty of willful misconduct when he becomes intoxicated. Kindt v. Kauffman (App. 3 Dist. 1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 603, 57 Cal.App.3d 845. Negligence 275
In action under the Federal Tort Claims Act (28 U.S.C.A. § 1346(C.A.1978) 2671 et seq.) for death and personal injuries arising from operation of a car by a Navy enlisted man who was driving home after drinking beer at a bar located on, and operated by, a naval air station, finding of the trial judge that the enlisted man was not obviously intoxicated when he was served at the service club, with result that there was no liability under California law as it existed at the time of accident on July 8, 1971, was not clearly erroneous. Gonzales v. U. S., C.A.9 (Cal.)1979, 589 F.2d 465. Federal Courts 863
Liability for those selling or furnishing alcoholic beverages is limited to sale of such beverages to obviously intoxicated minors. Cardinal v. Santee Pita, Inc. (App. 4 Dist. 1991) 286 Cal.Rptr. 275, 234 Cal.App.3d 1676. Intoxicating Liquors 286
Exception to absolute statutory immunity provided to sellers and servers of alcoholic beverages would not be recognized with respect to sale of alcoholic beverages to disabled and mentally incompetent customer. Cardinal v. Santee Pita, Inc. (App. 4 Dist. 1991) 286 Cal.Rptr. 275, 234 Cal.App.3d 1676. Intoxicating Liquors 299
Even if exception would be recognized to absolute statutory immunity provided to sellers and servers of alcoholic beverages for service of such beverages to persons who are unable to resist consumption of alcohol due to exceptional mental or physical condition, exclusion would not extend to the person who consumed the alcohol, as opposed to others harmed by the person who consumed the alcohol. Cardinal v. Santee Pita, Inc. (App. 4 Dist. 1991) 286 Cal.Rptr. 275, 234 Cal.App.3d 1676. Intoxicating Liquors 299
Statute immunizing innkeepers for sales to drunkard or intoxicated person does not affect innkeeper’s duty of care to take reasonable steps to protect his or her guests from aggressive conduct of other persons on premises. Cantwell v. Peppermill, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 246, 25 Cal.App.4th 1797, review denied. Negligence 1078
License to sell alcoholic beverages does not confer grant of immunity to innkeeper who permits premises to be used as area for aggressive tort-feasors. Cantwell v. Peppermill, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 246, 25 Cal.App.4th 1797, review denied. Negligence 1162
Bar patron who was stabbed by second patron stated valid cause of action for premises liability outside of purview of statute which immunized innkeepers for sales to drunkard or intoxicated person; patron alleged that bar breached its duty to exercise reasonable care to protect its patrons from reasonably foreseeable criminal or tortious conduct of their assailant and other third parties. Cantwell v. Peppermill, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 246, 25 Cal.App.4th 1797, review denied. Negligence 1162
Proprietor of place where intoxicating liquors are dispensed is liable for receiving or harboring guests of known violent or vicious propensities. Cantwell v. Peppermill, Inc. (App. 1 Dist. 1994) 31 Cal.Rptr.2d 246, 25 Cal.App.4th 1797, review denied. Negligence 1162
Defendants’ plea of “failure to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” in answer to complaint by injured passenger based upon sale of alcoholic beverages to allegedly intoxicated minor was sufficient to raise civil immunity for providers of alcoholic beverages, and failure to plead immunity itself as an affirmative defense was not fatal to claim of immunity. Baker v. Sudo (App. 4 Dist. 1987) 240 Cal.Rptr. 38, 194 Cal.App.3d 936, review denied. Intoxicating Liquors 306
This section, § 25602.1 and Civ.C. § 1714, limiting liability for the furnishing of alcoholic beverages did not exempt licensed liquor sellers from liability as a matter of law to third parties injured by drunk driving of sober person under 21 years of age who are sold liquor by sellers, and thus trial court properly overruled demurrer to complaint alleging that licensed seller sold alcohol to a 19-year-old which proximately caused him to become intoxicated and precipitate an injury-causing accident. Burke v. Superior Court, San Diego County (App. 4 Dist. 1982) 181 Cal.Rptr. 149, 129 Cal.App.3d 570. Intoxicating Liquors 286; Intoxicating Liquors 306
Complaint alleging that pedestrian, after consuming alcoholic beverages, was struck and hit by defendant’s truck stated cause of action against tavern owner. Fosgate v. Gonzales (App. 1 Dist. 1980) 166 Cal.Rptr. 233, 107 Cal.App.3d 951. Intoxicating Liquors 306
Cause of action for damages was stated by complaint which alleged that defendant, a minor, violated § 25658 by giving alcoholic beverage to minor automobile driver who thereafter negligently operated his vehicle so as to collide with that of plaintiff. King v. Ladyman (App. 3 Dist. 1978) 146 Cal.Rptr. 782, 81 Cal.App.3d 837. Intoxicating Liquors 306
Complaint which alleged that owners of apartment permitted motorist to drink on their premises and that the apartment manager, in some unspecified manner, “aided, abetted, participated and encouraged” the motorist to drink to excess did not assert that the owner or manager or their agents actually furnished liquor to the motorist and thus did not provide a basis for imposition of liability on the owner or manager for injuries received by a passenger riding with the motorist following his consumption of liquor on the apartment premises. Coulter v. Superior Court of San Mateo County (1978) 145 Cal.Rptr. 534, 21 Cal.3d 144, 577 P.2d 669. Intoxicating Liquors 306
In absence of any allegation that defendant negligently furnished alcoholic beverages to a severely or obviously intoxicated person or that defendant negligently and unlawfully furnished intoxicating beverages to an obviously intoxicated person knowing that the person was going to drive a vehicle, allegation in complaint that defendant “negligently and unlawfully” furnished alcoholic beverages to driver who thereafter became involved in collision in which other driver was injured was not sufficient to state a breach of duty owed to the injured driver. Coffman v. Kennedy (App. 1 Dist. 1977) 141 Cal.Rptr. 267, 74 Cal.App.3d 28. Automobiles 238(3)
Complaint alleging that liquor vendor after negligently putting decedent in sick, helpless, intoxicated condition failed to render aid to him to relieve such condition and that such failure was proximate cause of his death failed to state cause of action, as against claim of contributory negligence, for failure to render aid to one already negligently injured by defendant, in view of fact that, so far as appeared from allegations, injury occurred out of presence and without knowledge of liquor vendor. Venzor v. Santa Barbara Elks Lodge, No. 613 (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 128 Cal.Rptr. 353, 56 Cal.App.3d 209. Intoxicating Liquors 306
Statements of defendant tavern owner, sued by injured motorist operating vehicle struck by allegedly intoxicated tavern patron, to effect that his codefendants were not in his employment on the date of accident and that he had no ownership interest or any other interest in the vehicle being driven by defendant were not mere conclusions of law as contended by plaintiff claiming error in granting defendant tavern’s owner’s motion to strike as a sham, treated as a motion for summary judgment, that portion of complaint alleging that patron was driving automobile with the consent of the other defendants who were agents and employee of the others acting within scope of agency and employment, and plaintiff could not rely on allegations of his complaint to controvert statements in defendant’s declaration. Vesely v. Sager (1971) 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 5 Cal.3d 153, 486 P.2d 151. Judgment 185.1(4)
Complaint of motorist asserting that defendant tavern owner sold liquor to intoxicating patron in violation of this section and that such patron then drove from tavern and veered into wrong lane of highway and struck plaintiff’s automobile resulting in injuries to plaintiff was sufficient to state a cause of action against tavern owner. Vesely v. Sager (1971) 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 5 Cal.3d 153, 486 P.2d 151. Intoxicating Liquors 306
Whether or not doctrine of comparative negligence applied, surviving widow and minor child of union member were not entitled to recover from union for his wrongful death, on theory that union had provided intoxicants at union picnic at which he had become inebriated, since proximate cause of member’s death in ensuing automobile accident was not serving of intoxicants but their consumption and member’s action in driving motor vehicle while under their influence. Rose v. International Broth. of Elec. Workers, Local No. 11 (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 736, 58 Cal.App.3d 276. Intoxicating Liquors 291
In action for death allegedly resulting from action of defendant liquor vendor in negligently putting decedent in sick, helpless, intoxicated condition and failing to render aid to him to relieve such condition, thus proximately causing his death when he was struck by automobile, allegation that decedent was person incapable of exercising same degree of volitional control over his consumption of alcohol as normal person might refute requirement that risk be voluntarily undertaken, but did not supply necessary allegations imposing foreseeability of source from which injury was to occur. Venzor v. Santa Barbara Elks Lodge, No. 613 (App. 2 Dist. 1976) 128 Cal.Rptr. 353, 56 Cal.App.3d 209. Intoxicating Liquors 306
Action would not lie against liquor store operator for wrongful death of customer, who allegedly was in a state approaching drunkenness when he made purchase, who immediately thereafter entered restaurant and met his death when restaurant owner and employees attempted to evict him and in process thereof shoved him and caused him to fall to ground and strike his head, from which fall he died; showing of any causation by virtue of consumption of alcoholic beverage would establish contributory negligence. Sargent v. Goldberg (App. 2 Dist. 1972) 102 Cal.Rptr. 300, 25 Cal.App.3d 940. Intoxicating Liquors 291; Intoxicating Liquors 295
To convict person of serving intoxicating liquor to obviously intoxicated person, state was required to prove that person served was intoxicated and that his condition was obvious. People v. Smith (Super. 1949) 94 Cal.App.2d Supp. 975, 210 P.2d 98. Intoxicating Liquors 161
In prosecution for serving intoxicating liquor to obviously intoxicated person, police officers’ testimony that person served by defendant was intoxicated in witnesses’ opinions was admissible. People v. Smith (Super. 1949) 94 Cal.App.2d Supp. 975, 210 P.2d 98. Criminal Law 457
In prosecution for selling alcoholic beverage to obviously intoxicated person, admission of police officer’s testimony that such person was obviously intoxicated in witness’ opinion was prejudicial error as invading jury’s province to determine such issue. People v. Johnson (Super. 1947) 81 Cal.App.2d Supp. 973, 185 P.2d 105. Criminal Law 450; Criminal Law 1169.9
In view of fact that this section was adopted to protect the general public from injuries resulting from the excessive use of intoxicating liquor, a presumption of negligence arises when the statute is violated. Coffman v. Kennedy (App. 1 Dist. 1977) 141 Cal.Rptr. 267, 74 Cal.App.3d 28. Intoxicating Liquors 308
If defendant tavern owner sold liquor to patron who was in an intoxicated condition, patron drove from tavern and veered across to other lane of highway and struck automobile operated by plaintiff who was injured as a result of collision, sale was in violation of this section making sale of liquor to intoxicated persons a misdemeanor and the violation proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries, a presumption would have arisen that tavern owner was negligent in furnishing alcoholic beverages to patron. Vesely v. Sager (1971) 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 5 Cal.3d 153, 486 P.2d 151. Intoxicating Liquors 308
Whether tavern owner violates this section is question of fact for jury. Kindt v. Kauffman (App. 3 Dist. 1976) 129 Cal.Rptr. 603, 57 Cal.App.3d 845.
Whether a person was intoxicated when served with intoxicating liquor, in alleged violation of statute, was matter of fact, concerning which a witness could give opinion based on his observation of such person. People v. Smith (Super. 1949) 94 Cal.App.2d Supp. 975, 210 P.2d 98. Criminal Law 457
In prosecution for selling alcoholic beverage to obviously intoxicated person, whether outward manifestations of such person’s intoxication, as shown by evidence, were obvious to person having normal powers of observation and recognizable as usual indications of intoxicated person, was jury’s exclusive province to determine. People v. Johnson (Super. 1947) 81 Cal.App.2d Supp. 973, 185 P.2d 105. Intoxicating Liquors 238(5)
Revocation of on-sale beer and wine license of licensee, who had had no prior disciplinary record with Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control but who was guilty of using services of his minor son in pouring some beer, permitting a female waitress to dispense wine and selling beer to obviously intoxicated person, was a clear abuse of discretion. Harris v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (1965) 43 Cal.Rptr. 633, 62 Cal.2d 589, 400 P.2d 745. Intoxicating Liquors 106(4)
In a proceeding for suspension of a licensee’s general on-sale liquor license, documents filed by the licensee with the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control constituted a valid notice of appeal. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Appeals Bd. (App. 1959) 169 Cal.App.2d 785, 338 P.2d 50. Intoxicating Liquors 108.10(1)
Courts reviewing findings of department of alcoholic beverage control that owners of on-sale liquor license, served an alcoholic beverage to an obviously intoxicated person and that their license should be suspended for 30 days, were bound by substantial evidence rule, and could not reweigh the evidence, or pass on the credibility of witnesses, or resolve conflicting testimony contrary to findings. Samaras v. Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (App. 1 Dist. 1960) 4 Cal.Rptr. 857, 180 Cal.App.2d 842. Intoxicating Liquors 108.10(8)
No comments yet
Comments feed for this article