Michigan’s “Visible Intoxication” Act

News Blaze and 24-7 Press Release have provided the details behind Michigan's Dramshop Act starting with the results from Michigan's Annual Drunk Driving Audit from 2009.  In that year 6,271 people were injured and 351 were killed in car crashes that involved either drugs or alcohol.

The Dramshop law makes a bar, if that's where the drinking took place, the responsible party if their patron is then involved in an alcohol related accident.  The law can hold the bar liable for civil damages, if the deterrent alone is ineffective, whether guests were at their establishment for an "all-nighter" party with a large group of friends or using a fake I.D. to quietly sip their night away unnoticed.

The act states that a lawsuit may be filed against a bar if they find that it illegally served alcohol to intoxicated or underage clients that went on to cause property damage, injury or death.  It doesn't apply to wholesale licensees.

The Michigan Liquor Control Code (Dramshop Act) is as follows:

• The victim must suffer property damage or personal injury.
• The damage or injury must be caused by a minor or visibly intoxicated person because of the unlawful selling, giving or furnishing of alcohol to the minor or visibly intoxicated person.
• Unlawfully furnishing alcohol to the minor or visibly intoxicated person must be the proximate cause of the injury or damages.

The allegedly intoxicated person, AIP, cannot file a claim against the server of alcohol.

Any person injured in an accident fueled by over-serving must give written notice to the bar within 120 days of hiring an attorney.  The lawsuit then must begin within two years of the death or injury.  

Compared to the doctrine of social host liability, where persons or entities other than bars can be held responsible for providing liquor to an underage person, the Dramshop Act only addresses service in bars.

The issue for Dramshop cases lie in whether an AIP was served while already overly intoxicated.  A person is visibly intoxicated, per the Michigan Model Civil Jury Instructions, if their drunkenness is apparent to a casual observer. 

One way to obtain evidence is the submission of a BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) test given at the hospital, crime lab or a medical examiner's office.  Expert witness toxicologists also assist in providing likely BAC when they look at the number of alcohol beverages consumed by the AIP in a given period. 

In a 2006 Michigan Supreme Court case, expert testimony was limited and plaintiffs used suppositions from BAC tests.  Four eyewitnesses gave testimony alleging seeing no signs of intoxication in the AIP.  The court said that expert analysis may show an actual intoxication, but it doesn't give the actual proof of a witness.

In future cases it may not be that casual bar patron alone, but subjective and direct eyewitness testimony that will be required.

If you are concerned about laws pertaining to DUI, DWI, OUI or OWI in your state, or are a victim yourself, click here for our directory of qualified attorneys.