You asked if the Dram Shop Act applies to a nonprofit organization that serves wine at a wine-tasting event but does not charge by the drink.

SUMMARY

Liquor sellers are liable under the Dram Shop Act in certain circumstances. The Dram Shop Act makes someone who sells liquor to an intoxicated person liable if the intoxicated person injures another or another's property because of the intoxication. Without the act, someone who furnishes liquor is generally not liable for damage caused by an intoxicated person due to his intoxication. This is because the courts have held that the proximate cause of the intoxication is not the furnishing of the liquor but the consumption of it. The Dram Shop Act, in addition to establishing third party liability, limits it to $ 20,000 per injured person up to a maximum liability of $ 50,000 per accident.

There are two exceptions to the common law rule. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled in 1980 that liquor sellers and social hosts alike can be liable if the sale or delivery of liquor was a wanton and reckless act. The Court ruled in1988 that there may be liability if the liquor was given to a minor.

We did not find any cases specifically addressing whether the circumstances of the sale (charging for an event rather than by the drink) or the type of organization furnishing the liquor (nonprofit) affect liability.

DRAM SHOP ACT

The Dram Shop Act makes a liquor seller liable if he or one of his employees sells liquor to someone who is already intoxicated and that person injures another or another's property. It limits the seller's maximum liability under this law to $ 20,000 per person up to $ 50,000 per incident. The actual amount of liability in a particular case is decided in court. The act requires the injured party to notify the seller within 60 days of the incident causing harm of his intention to sue for damages. Up to 120 days between the death or incapacity of the injured party and the appointment of an executor, administrator, conservator, or guardian of the estate is not counted toward the 60-day deadline. The notice must state (1) the time and day of the sale and to whom it was made; (2) the name and address of the injured party; and (3) the time, day, and place of injury. Suits must be brought within one year of the sale (CGS § 30-102).

LIABILITY FOR WANTON AND RECKLESS CONDUCT

The Connecticut Supreme Court held in 1980 that a liquor permittee who sells liquor to an already-intoxicated person who subsequently injures another person because of his intoxication can be sued by the injured third party if the seller acted wantonly and recklessly. The court was considering a case in which the trial court was asked to consider claims based on (1) the Dram Shop Act, (2) common law negligence, and (3) gross negligence and wanton and reckless conduct. The defendant liquor permittee moved to strike the second and third claims. The court was hearing the defendant's appeal of the trial court's rejection of the motions (Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355).

The court ruled that it was proper to strike the common law claim but not the claim based on wanton and reckless conduct. It based its ruling on the legal principle of "legal cause," described by the court as "a hybrid construct, the result of balancing philosophic, pragmatic, and moral approaches to causation" (Ibid, p. 359). After exploring these approaches, the Court concluded that there is no reason to protect a seller (or a social host, for that matter) from liability for the harmful consequences of wanton and reckless misconduct in the sale or delivery of intoxicating beverages. The effect of the ruling was to create a way in which injured third parties could sue liquor sellers under common law, if the injured parties could claim that the seller's actions were wanton and reckless. As under the Dram Shop Act, the actual amount of liability is determined in court, but unlike the Dram Shop Act, there is no monetary cap on liability.

LIABILITY FOR SUPPLYING LIQUOR TO A MINOR

The Connecticut Supreme Court held in 1988 that one who provides alcohol to a minor who subsequently injures another person because of his intoxication can be sued by the third party. This is because the legislature has determined that a minor is not competent to deal responsibly with the effects of alcohol and therefore consumption of liquor by a minor does not, as a matter of law, constitute the intervening act necessary to break the chain of proximate causation (Ely v. Murphy, 207 Conn. 88).

The Court affirmed this principle in a subsequent decision (Bohan v. Last, 236 Conn. 670). It stated that in "appropriate circumstances, a purveyor of alcohol to a minor is liable...because he has negligently [supplied] the minor with alcohol" (Ibid, p. 679).

DD: eh