Call Toll Free 1-888-792-3595

What defenses do the bar and liquor license holder have?

A:  A bar or liquor licensee or permittee can avoid liability under the Dramshop Act if it can prove the injured person assumed the risk of injury.  However, the assumption of risk defense is quite narrowly confined and restricted by the requirements that the Plaintiff must know the risk is present, understand its nature, and despite this, freely and voluntarily chooses to incur the risk.  As an example, a licensee or permittee can avoid liability under the Dramshop Act if it can prove the injured person was injured as a result of his or her voluntary intoxication or that he/she became intoxicated with the person who later caused the injuries.  For example, if a person is drinking with friends and then later rides home from the bar with a friend who was intoxicated then the bar will have a what is known as a "complicity in intoxication' in defense.  

 Also, if the injury was caused by an intoxicated person, the licensee or permittee may present the affirmative defense of “the intoxication did not contribute to the injurious actions of the intoxicated person.”  Once the Plaintiff establishes that an intoxicated person who was served while intoxicated or became intoxicated at the bar or liquor licensee establishment caused an injury, the burden of proving proximate cause then shifts from the Plaintiff to the Defendant bar or liquor license holder.  

 Unlike most personal injury cases, there is no comparative fault defense available so the fault of the Plaintiff is not considered.  However, the assumption of risk defense does apply and if the Plaintiff assumed the risk then he/she will be denied compensation for their injuries.