Dram Shop and Social Host Liability Laws allowing liability of establishments arising out of the sale of alcohol to obviously intoxicated persons or minors who subsequently cause death or injury to third-parties as a result of alcohol-related crashes. • Dram shop liability laws reduce alcohol-related crashes. Texas experienced a 6.5 percent decrease in single vehicle nighttime crashes resulting in injury immediately after a liability case was filed in 1983, and an additional 5.3 percent decrease after another case was filed in 1984.i In 2001, researchers found a 5.8 percent decrease in fatal crashes from dram shop liability laws.ii Other studies have found a similar deterrent effect from dram shop liability by three to five percent.iii,iv,v,vi This is because this liability makes it in the economic best interest of establishments to have responsible serving practices. • Dram shop laws increase publicity of the impacts of over-serving. Studies show that states that have a high level of dram shop liability have more publicity about the impacts of liability and have more servers and managers who are aware of liability.vii,viii • Dram shop laws decrease excessive and illegal consumption. Studies have found that states with high levels of dram shop liability also had fewer lower-price drink promotions (like “happy hours”) that encourage excessive consumption in a limited amount of time. ixx This is important, because access to an unlimited amount of alcohol for a flat fee increases the number of drinks in a sitting by 1.6 drinks on average.xi States with dram shop liability also had more thorough checks of identification on average, which means that fewer minors were able to drink illegally.xii This is an accomplishment, considering that US purchase surveys show that 40 to 90 percent of outlets sell to underage buyersxiii,xiv,xv and that this stems from low and inconsistent levels of enforcement against adults who sell or provide alcohol.xvi,xvii • Dram shop laws do not decrease personal responsibility. Creating a cause of action against an over-serving establishment does not mean that the individual is not also held responsible. Rather, punitive damages for both drinking drivers and serving establishments serve similar purposes – to show them the penalties that come with their actions and to cause them to rethink their practices. Dram Shop and Social Host Liability Laws Social Social Vendor Vendor Host Host Liability Liability Liability Liability for for for for Intoxicated Intoxicated Intoxicated Intoxicated Relevant State Adults? Minors? Adults? Minors? Statutes/Case Law Alabama Yes Yes No Limited § 6-5-71, §6-5-72 §04.16.030;§04.21.020(a); Alaska Limited Yes No No §04.21.080(a)(l). Arizona Yes Yes No Yes §§ 4-311; 4-301; 4-312(B) §16-126-103; §16-126- Arkansas Yes Yes No No 104; BUS §25602; BUS California No Limited No No §25602.1 §§ 12-46-112.5; 12-47- Colorado Yes Yes No Yes 128.5 Connecticut Yes Yes No Yes § 30-102 DC Yes Yes No No Case Law Delaware No No No No Florida Limited Yes No No § 768.125 Georgia Limited Yes Limited Yes § 51-1-40(b) Hawaii No Yes No Yes Case Law Idaho Limited Yes Limited Yes § 23-808 Illinois Yes Yes No Limited § 235 IILCS 5/6-21 Indiana Yes Yes Yes Yes § IC7.1-5-10-15.5 Iowa Yes Yes No Limited §§ 123.92; 123.49(1) Kansas No No No No Kentucky Yes Yes No No § 413.241 Louisiana No Yes No No § 9:2008 28-A MRSA § 2501 et Maine Yes Yes Limited Yes seq. Maryland No No No No Massachusetts Yes Yes No Limited Case Law Michigan Limited Yes No Yes § 436.1801(3) & (10) Minnesota Yes Yes No Limited §340A.801 Mississippi Limited Yes No Yes § 67-3-73 (2) & (4) Missouri Limited Yes No No § 537.053 Montana Limited Yes No Yes § 27-1-710 Nebraska No No No No Dram Shop and Social Host Liability Laws Social Social Vendor Vendor Host Host Liability Liability Liability Liability for for for for Relevant Intoxicated Intoxicated Intoxicated Intoxicated Statutes/Case State Adults? Minors? Adults? Minors? Law Nevada No No No No § 41.1305 New Hampshire Yes Yes Yes Yes § 507-F:1 et seq. New Jersey Limited Yes Limited Yes §2A:22A-1 et seq. New Mexico Yes Yes Yes Yes § 41-11-1 New York Yes Yes No Yes §§ 11-100 & 11-101 North Carolina Limited Yes Limited Limited §§ 18B-120 et seq. North Dakota Yes Yes Yes Yes § 5-01-06.1 §§ 4399.01, Ohio Yes Yes No Yes 4399.02, & 4388.18 Oklahoma No Yes No No Case Law 471.565(2); Oregon Yes Yes Limited Yes §471.567 Pennsylvania Limited Limited No Yes 47 § 4-497 Rhode Island Yes Yes No No §3-14-6; §3-14-7. South Carolina No Yes No Limited Case Law §§ 35-4-78, 35-11-1, South Dakota No No No No & 35-11-2 §57 10 101; §57 10 Tennessee Limited Yes No No 102; Case Law Texas Limited Limited No Limited §2.01 et seq Utah Limited Limited No Yes § 32A-14-101 Vermont Yes Yes No Yes 7 § 501 Virginia No No No No §66.44.200; Case Washington No Yes No Yes Law West Virginia Yes Yes No No § 55-7-9 § 125.035, Case Wisconsin No Yes No Yes Law Wyoming Limited Yes No Yes § 12-8-301 Revised June 2012 i Wagenaar, Alexander C. and Harold D. Holder. “Effects of Alcoholic Beverage Server Liability on Traffic Crash Injuries.” Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research 15 vol. 6 (1991): 942-947. ii Eisenberg, Daniel. “Evaluating the Effectiveness of a 0.08 Percent BAC Limit and Other Policies Related to Drunk Driving.” Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research Discussion Paper No. 00-23. Stanford, CA: Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research, January 2001. http://siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/00-23.pdf iii Chaloupka, Frank, Henry Saffer, and Michael Grossman. “Alcohol-Control Policies and Motor- Vehicle Fatalities.” Journal of Legal Studies XXII (1993): 161-186. iv Whetten-Goldstein, Kathryn. et al. “Civil Liability, Criminal Law, and Other Policies and Alcohol-Related Motor Vehicle Fatalities in the United States: 1984-1995.” Accident Analysis and Prevention 32 (2000): 723-733. v Young, Douglas, Thomas Likens. “Alcohol Regulation and Auto Fatalities.” International Review of Law and Economics 20 vol. 1 (2000): 107-126. vi Sloan, Frank A., et al. Drinkers, Drivers, and Bartenders: Balancing Private Choices and Public Accountability. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000. vii Holder, Harold D., et al. “Alcoholic Beverage Server Liability and the Reduction of Alcohol-Involved Problems.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 54 (1993): 23-36. viii Sloan, Frank A., et al. Drinkers, Drivers, and Bartenders: Balancing Private Choices and Public Accountability. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000. ix Powell, Lisa, Jenny Williams, and Henry Wechsler. “Study Habits and Alcohol Use among College Students.” Education Economics (August 2004). x Powell, Lisa et al. “Binge Drinking and Violence among College Students: Sensitivity to Correlation in the Unobservables.” Research Paper Series, No. 20 (February 2002). http://www.alcoholpolicysolutions.net/pdf/bingeviolence_powellfinal.pdf xi Powell, Lisa, Jenny Williams, and Henry Wechsler. “Study Habits and Alcohol Use among College Students.” Education Economics (August 2004). xii Holder, Harold D., et al. “Alcoholic Beverage Server Liability and the Reduction of Alcohol-Involved Problems.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 54 (1993): 23-36. xiii Forster, Jean L., et al. “Commercial Availability of Alcohol to Young People: Results of Alcohol Purchase Attempts.” Preventive Medicine 24 (1995): 342-347. xiv Forster, Jean L., et al. “The Ability of Young People to Purchase Alcohol Without Age Identification in Northeastern Minnesota, USA.” Addiction 89 (1994): 699-705 xv Grube, Joel W. “Preventing Sales of Alcohol to Minors: Results from a Community Trial.” Addiction 92 (Suppl. 2) (1997): S251-S260. xvi Wagenaar, Alex and M Wolfson. “Deterring Sales and Provision of Alcohol to Minors: A Study of Enforcement in 295 Counties in Four States.” Public Health Reports 110 (1995): 419-427. xvii Wagenaar, Alex and M Wolfson. “Enforcement of the Legal Minimum Drinking Age in the United States.” Journal of Public Health Policy 15 (1995): 37-53. .