Court Grants Summary Judgment for Insured Bar in Dram Shop Case
Attorneys Amanda Basta and Robert Leone obtained a summary judgment ruling in a dram shop case involving an insured bar accused of overserving a patron who went on to be involved in a motor vehicle collision. The Plaintiffs, a brother and sister, both claimed that as a result of the accident with the defendant patron, they sustained serious injuries and disability and were prevented from carrying on their occupational and educational duties.
The plaintiffs alleged that the motor vehicle accident was a direct result of the bar’s failure to refuse service to the defendant once he had become “severely intoxicated”. The plaintiffs pointed to the results of defendant’s breathalyzer test conducted at the scene of the accident which showed the defendant’s BAC was above the legal limit to operate a motor vehicle.
Attorneys Basta and Leone moved for Summary Judgment, arguing that the Plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish liability against the insured bar. To meet their burden, the Plaintiffs were required to produce evidence that the bar “knew or should have known [the patron] was intoxicated at the time he was served his last drink.” Cimino v. Milford Keg, 385 Mass. 323, 327 (1982). At the hearing on the motion, Attorney Basta argued that Plaintiff failed to develop or produce any such evidence. Instead, the Plaintiffs relied solely on the patron’s post- accident breathalyzer results to establish intoxication. However, Massachusetts precedent holds that breathalyzer results alone are insufficient to establish liability, as how a given level of alcohol consumption affects the average person cannot establish visible intoxication at the time of service. Vickowski v. Polish Amer. Citizen’s Club of Deerfield, Inc., 422 Mass. 606 (1996).
The plaintiffs cited previous liquor cases which held “service of a large number of strong alcoholic drinks [would be] sufficient to put a [liquor license holder] on notice that it was serving a [patron] who could potentially endanger others.” Cimino, 385 Mass. at 328. Attorney Basta argued that the cases cited by the plaintiff were incomparable, involving vastly higher consumption amounts over shorter periods.
The court granted the motion for summary judgment in favor of the defendant bar.