How Dram Shop Lawsuits Work in Missouri

"Dram shop" laws refer to statutes and case law that hold alcohol-serving establishments accountable for injuries and damages caused by their intoxicated patrons. These laws are designed to promote responsible alcohol service and provide recourse for victims of alcohol-related incidents. In Missouri, dram shop liability is governed by specific statutes and judicial interpretations.

Missouri Statutes on Dram Shop Liability

The primary statute governing dram shop liability in Missouri is Section 537.053 of the Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo). This statute sets forth the conditions under which a licensed establishment can be held liable for injuries caused by an intoxicated patron.

Key Provisions of Section 537.053 RSMo

Liability for Intoxication: According to Section 537.053.2, an alcohol-serving establishment can be held liable for damages if it can be proven that the establishment knowingly served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or to someone under the age of 21. The statute reads:
"A cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who is injured or whose property is damaged as a result of the negligence of an intoxicated person, provided that it is proven that the seller knew or should have known that the person was visibly intoxicated at the time the intoxicating liquor was served."
Burden of Proof: The burden of proof lies with the plaintiff to demonstrate that the establishment knowingly served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or to a minor. This means providing evidence that the establishment either knew or should have known about the patron's level of intoxication or age.
Exemptions: Section 537.053.3 provides exemptions for social hosts, meaning individuals who serve alcohol at private gatherings without a license to sell alcohol are not subject to dram shop liability.

Case Law Interpretations

Missouri courts have interpreted and applied Section 537.053 in various cases, providing additional clarity on how dram shop liability is enforced. Here are some key case law examples:

Case Study 1: Nazeri v. Missouri Valley College

In the case of Nazeri v. Missouri Valley College, 860 S.W.2d 303 (Mo. 1993), the Missouri Supreme Court addressed the issue of dram shop liability. The plaintiff, an injured party, filed a lawsuit against Missouri Valley College, alleging that the college's employees had served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person who later caused an accident. The court ruled that there was sufficient evidence to support the claim that the college knowingly served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person, thereby upholding the dram shop liability.

Case Study 2: Samson v. State

In Samson v. State, 921 S.W.2d 540 (Mo. App. 1996), the Missouri Court of Appeals dealt with the issue of proving visible intoxication. The plaintiff in this case argued that the alcohol-serving establishment had served alcohol to a patron who was visibly intoxicated, resulting in an accident. The court emphasized the importance of eyewitness testimony and other evidence, such as surveillance footage, in establishing visible intoxication. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, highlighting the necessity of concrete evidence in dram shop cases.

Case Study 3: May Dept. Stores Co. v. AdWorks, Inc.

In the case of May Dept. Stores Co. v. AdWorks, Inc., 809 S.W.2d 874 (Mo. App. 1991), the Missouri Court of Appeals considered the liability of an alcohol-serving establishment for serving alcohol to a minor. The plaintiff, representing the injured party, presented evidence that the establishment had failed to check the identification of a minor who was served alcohol and subsequently caused an accident. The court ruled that the establishment's failure to verify age constituted negligence, thereby affirming dram shop liability.

Practical Implications for Alcohol-Serving Establishments

Missouri's dram shop laws have significant implications for alcohol-serving establishments, including bars, restaurants, and liquor stores. To minimize the risk of liability, establishments should adopt the following best practices:

Training and Education: Staff should receive comprehensive training on responsible alcohol service, including recognizing signs of intoxication and understanding the legal requirements for checking identification.
Policies and Procedures: Establishments should implement clear policies and procedures for serving alcohol, including protocols for handling visibly intoxicated patrons and verifying the age of customers.
Monitoring and Enforcement: Management should actively monitor the behavior of patrons and enforce alcohol service policies consistently. This includes refusing service to visibly intoxicated individuals and minors.
Documentation: Establishments should maintain detailed records of incidents involving intoxicated patrons or minors, including steps taken to address the situation. This documentation can serve as evidence of responsible alcohol service in the event of a legal dispute.

Challenges in Proving Dram Shop Liability

While Missouri's dram shop laws provide a legal avenue for holding alcohol-serving establishments accountable, proving liability can be challenging. Plaintiffs must meet the burden of proof, which often requires substantial evidence. Here are some common challenges faced in dram shop cases:

Visible Intoxication: Establishing that a patron was visibly intoxicated at the time of service is a critical element of dram shop liability. Plaintiffs must provide evidence, such as witness testimony, surveillance footage, or expert opinions, to demonstrate visible intoxication.
Knowledge and Intent: Plaintiffs must prove that the establishment knowingly served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person or a minor. This requires showing that the staff either knew or should have known about the patron's intoxication or age.
Causation: Plaintiffs must establish a causal link between the service of alcohol and the subsequent injuries or damages. This involves demonstrating that the intoxicated patron's actions directly resulted in harm.

"Proving dram shop liability requires a thorough investigation and compelling evidence," says Mark Johnson, a personal injury attorney. "Plaintiffs must meet a high burden of proof to succeed in these cases."

Conclusion

Missouri's dram shop laws play a crucial role in promoting responsible alcohol service and providing recourse for victims of alcohol-related incidents. By understanding the statutes and case law governing dram shop liability, both plaintiffs and alcohol-serving establishments can navigate the legal landscape more effectively. For plaintiffs, gathering substantial evidence and consulting with experienced attorneys are essential steps in pursuing a successful dram shop claim. For establishments, implementing responsible alcohol service practices can minimize the risk of liability and ensure compliance with the law.