This week’s question comes from Robert from San Francisco, CA, who asks:
Would a liquor store be liable for what someone does after they consume an alcoholic beverage purchased there? What if they sell to a minor who causes an injury to themselves or others?
-Robert
Dear Robert,
Under California Business & Professions Code Section 25602, liquor stores are generally protected from civil liability for selling alcohol to consumers who later cause harm to others. This statute provides immunity to businesses that lawfully sell alcohol, even if the purchaser later commits an act, such as a car accident, while intoxicated. However, there are important exceptions that liquor stores should be aware of, particularly when it comes to selling alcohol to minors.
The Exception: Sales to Obviously Intoxicated Minors
The major exception to this immunity comes from Section 25602.1, which allows for a cause of action when a liquor store sells alcohol to an obviously intoxicated minor. Should the minor’s intoxication be apparent, and the sale of alcohol is the proximate cause of injury or death, the liquor store can be held liable. If a visibly drunk minor purchases alcohol and their intoxicated state leads directly to a harmful event—such as a car accident—the store’s act of selling the alcohol is seen as contributing to the injury.
Causation and When It Is Not Cut Off
One critical legal concept in Dram Shop cases is “causation.” For a liquor store to be held liable, the sale of alcohol must be the direct cause (or “proximate cause”) of the injury or harm. Courts have ruled that when an obviously intoxicated minor buys alcohol and then injures someone, the chain of causation is clear. The store’s action in selling the alcohol is not considered too distant or removed from the injury.
However, not every scenario leads to liability. In Salem v. Superior Ct., 211 Cal. App. 3d 595, 259 Cal. Rptr. 447 (Ct. App. 1989), modified (June 23, 1989), the court held that injuries resulting from the intoxication of a person other than the obviously intoxicated minor who purchases an alcoholic beverage are not injuries “proximately” resulting from the sale of such beverage to a minor within the meaning of the dramshop statute.
Additionally, in Strang v. Cabrol, 37 Cal. 3d 720, 691 P.2d 1013 (1984), the court emphasized that selling alcohol to a minor who is not obviously intoxicated does not result in liability, even if that minor later provides the alcohol to another person who causes harm. Again, in this situation, the causal link between the act of selling alcohol and the injury is too distant to hold the store responsible.
Christopher B. Dolan owns the Dolan Law Firm. Candice Sannella is a trial attorney in our Oakland office. We serve San Francisco Bay Area and California clients from our San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles offices.
Email questions and topics for future articles to help@dolanlawfirm.com. Each situation is different, and this column does not constitute legal advice. We recommend consulting with an experienced trial attorney to understand your rights fully.
For more information, you can go to dolanlawfirm.com.
To read more articles on our blog, visit us at www.dolanlawfirm.com/blog.
