Bartender Liability
I argued with a student in my class last year about whether or not a bartender could be held civilly liable for injuries sustained as a result of intoxication caused by the consumer of alcoholic beverages served to them. My position was something like: “in rare cases a bartender can be so negligent in serving a person that they can be held civilly liable if that person later crashes their car causing injuries to a person.” For instance, I said, if the person is drooling drunk and holding car keys and telling the bartender he wants one more shot for the road” and then he goes out and causes a major wreck, surely that bartender can be held liable for those injuries. Turns out I was wrong and it reminded me I shouldn’t be so confident about the way of things.
The lead case is Trenier v. California Investment & Development Corp. from 1980. There one of the plaintiffs was served by a bartender “twenty-seven ounces of straight Jack Daniels Whiskey and four ounces of Tequila in a period less than two hours in duration.” The plaintiff then left the tavern in his car and crashed it, causing injuries to himself. The Court held that recovery was barred in a funny opinion. Here are a few lines:
“We are thus led along a busy thoroughfare, the traffic on which by appellate courts and the Legislature has vastly increased in recent years -- the road of liability for the damage caused by, and to, the drinker.”
“Once the roadblock was gone [referring to earlier precedent], and the avenue of liability opened to members of the general public injured as a result of a collision with a driver alleged to have been served by a bartender when in an obviously intoxicated condition, others sought its use.”
“Though undoubtedly more makeweight than anything else, one can discern a plethora of lesser Vehicle Code violations murkily delineated through the pleading, including such familiar standbys as Vehicle Code sections 22350 (driving at greater than a prudent speed)[…]”
“Ultimately, appellant undertakes to avoid the effect of Sissle by nimbly leaping from one to another contention: that Sissle is indeed wrong, and that as an inexperienced drinker, his situation differs from that of Mr. Sissle.”
“The factual/legal contention advanced by appellant seeks to dress the ravening wolf in the hide of a sheep in order to stand more directly in the Ewing lane: he seeks to argue[…]”
And from a footnote: “To be sure, bartenders are very likely an impecunious group and a far from worthwhile group as solvent or insured defendants; on the other hand, their employers are reasonably likely to fit a desirable defense category.”
As always, there are exceptions to rules so don’t rely on any of this as legal advice. IF you find yourself in a position where you were “overserved” by a bartender and in need of a good DUI lawyer, contact my office to schedule a free 30-minute consultation.
