Liability for providing or serving alcoholic beverages to intoxicated person
- notice of claim
Source:
Section 471.565 — Liability for providing or serving alcoholic beverages to intoxicated person; notice of claim, https://www.oregonlegislature.gov/bills_laws/ors/ors471.html
.
Notes of Decisions
This section does not create claim in favor of intoxicated patrons injured off premises as result of own intoxication against OLCC licensees who serve them when visibly intoxicated. Sager v. McClenden, 296 Or 33, 672 P2d 697 (1983)
This section sets standard for civil liability to third parties as being “visibly intoxicated” which is not necessarily the same as being “under the influence of intoxicating liquor”; testimony of officer concerning blood alcohol standard for being under the influence of intoxicating liquor was not relevant. Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, 68 Or App 879, 683 P2d 139 (1984), aff’d 298 Or 689, 696 P2d 513 (1985)
When the act of serving intoxicated persons is found to meet requisite disregard of social obligations, award of punitive damages is allowable under this section. Pfeifer v. Copperstone Restaurant and Lounge, 71 Or App 599, 693 P2d 644 (1984)
The term “visibly intoxicated” in this section includes intoxication by controlled substances or alcohol or both. Blunt v. Bocci, 74 Or App 697, 704 P2d 534 (1985), Sup Ct review denied
When statute provides that tavern owner is liable for acts of person who has been served alcoholic liquor while visibly intoxicated, legislature has resolved foreseeability issue as matter of law, and plaintiff protected by such statute need not resort to any concepts of negligence. Chartrand v. Coos Bay Tavern, 298 Or 689, 696 P2d 513 (1985)
Recovery for damages caused by intoxicated patron or guest is limited to damages caused by drunk driving. Gattman v. Favro, 306 Or 11, 757 P2d 402 (1988)
Stepfather buying drinks for stepson in public tavern was “social host.” Solberg v. Johnson, 306 Or 484, 760 P2d 867 (1988)
To state common law negligence claim that is not barred by [former] ORS 30.950, plaintiff must allege that licensee or permittee served alcohol to the person who injured plaintiff when that person was visibly intoxicated. Hawkins v. Conklin, 307 Or 262, 767 P2d 66 (1988)
Social host is not barred from seeking damages for third-party defendant’s service of visibly intoxicated social guest. Grady v. Cedar Side Inn, Inc., 154 Or App 622, 963 P2d 36 (1998), aff’d 330 Or 42, 997 P2d 197 (2000)
Where evidence indicated that defendant had control over alcohol supply from which visibly-intoxicated guest consumed alcohol, defendant “served or provided” guest with alcohol and material issue of fact existed as to whether defendant was liable for harm caused by intoxicated guest which precluded rendition of summary judgment. Baker v. Croslin, 264 Or App 196, 330 P3d 698 (2014), aff’d 359 Or 147, 376 P3d 267 (2016)
Plaintiff, who was injured in motor vehicle accident by defendant, who consumed alcohol at home of social host prior to driving, does not have right of action against social host under this section because this section does not impose statutory duty or liability on social host and does not provide right of action against social host that has elements independent of plaintiff’s claim for common-law negligence. Deckard v. Bunch, 358 Or 754, 370 P3d 478 (2016)
Because statute did not alter common law duties owed by servers of alcohol but did eliminate remedies that would have been cognizable under general common law negligence principles that existed prior to statute’s enactment, statute is unconstitutional under remedies clause of Article I, section 10, of Oregon Constitution. Schutz v. La Costita III Inc., 288 Or App 476, 406 P3d 66 (2017), aff’d on other grounds, 364 Or 536, 436 P3d 776 (2019)
Provision that prohibits patron of tavern from bringing personal injury claim against tavern that overserves liquor to patron does not bar defendant patron from impleading tavern in personal injury claim against patron brought by third party. Wilda v. Roe, 290 Or App 599, 415 P3d 1146 (2018)
Section imposes unusual burden on injured plaintiff to prove negative as part of claim, i.e., that injured plaintiff did not substantially contribute to intoxication of defendant who caused plaintiff’s injury. Mason v. BCK Corp., 292 Or App 580, 426 P3d 206 (2018), Sup Ct review denied
“Substantially contribute” carries more specialized meaning that it has in tort context: that injured plaintiff’s conduct was significant and material factor in defendant’s intoxication such that reasonable persons would regard plaintiff’s conduct as cause-in-fact of defendant’s intoxication, not of plaintiff’s injury. Mason v. BCK Corp., 292 Or App 580, 426 P3d 206 (2018), Sup Ct review denied
To determine whether injured plaintiff substantially contributed to defendant’s intoxication, “providing,” “furnishing,” “encouraging” and “facilitating” are to be broadly construed. Mason v. BCK Corp., 292 Or App 580, 426 P3d 206 (2018), Sup Ct review denied
Immunity of server or social host from liability to patron or guest applies only to actions taken in role of server or social hoist. Schutz v. La Costita III, Inc. 364 Or 536, 436 P3d 776 (2019)
Law Review Citations
16 WLR 191 (1979); 23 WLR 93, 105 (1987); 24 WLR 306 (1988); 68 OLR 242 (1989); 27 WLR 829 (1991); 77 OLR 497 (1998)