Regarding Designated Drivers A Server Is Liable

Regarding Designated Drivers: Is a Server Liable?

The question of server liability concerning designated drivers is complex and nuanced, lacking clear-cut legal precedent in many jurisdictions. While no single law definitively states a server's liability for patrons who choose to drive drunk, several legal theories could potentially hold servers accountable in specific circumstances. This article explores the potential liabilities, the factors contributing to a successful claim, and the best practices for establishments to mitigate risk.

Understanding the Legal Landscape

The legal responsibility for drunk driving incidents generally falls on the intoxicated driver. However, the concept of dram shop laws introduces a critical layer of potential liability for establishments serving alcohol. These laws vary significantly from state to state and even county to county, but generally hold businesses that serve alcohol responsible for injuries caused by visibly intoxicated patrons who subsequently drive. The key here is "visibly intoxicated." This means the server or establishment should have reasonably known the patron was intoxicated and yet still served them alcohol.

Key Elements of Dram Shop Laws

To establish liability under dram shop laws, a plaintiff (the injured party or their representative) generally needs to prove several key elements:

• Intoxication: The patron was visibly intoxicated at the time of service. This isn't simply about being slightly tipsy; it implies a level of impairment that would be obvious to a reasonable observer. Evidence could include unsteady gait, slurred speech, aggressive behavior, or a combination of these.
• Service of Alcohol: The establishment served alcohol to the visibly intoxicated patron, knowing, or having reason to know, of their intoxication. This includes serving additional alcohol after the patron's intoxication becomes apparent. Mere negligence isn't enough; the plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the establishment knowingly or recklessly contributed to the intoxication.
• Causation: A direct causal link needs to be established between the establishment's action (serving alcohol) and the subsequent accident or injury. The plaintiff needs to demonstrate that the intoxicated patron's driving, directly caused by their intoxication, caused the incident. This is often the most challenging element to prove.
• Damages: The plaintiff must demonstrate they suffered actual damages as a result of the incident. This includes medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and property damage.

The Designated Driver Fallacy and Server Liability

While a patron designates a driver, it doesn’t absolve the server of potential liability. The designated driver program, while aiming to promote responsible drinking, offers no legal protection to the server if they continued to serve alcohol to a visibly intoxicated individual even after they've identified a designated driver.

The argument that a designated driver was present often fails for several reasons:

• Designated driver's own impairment: The designated driver themselves might become intoxicated during the course of the evening. The server's responsibility to monitor intoxication levels applies to all patrons.
• Over-service despite designated driver: Servers might still over-serve an already intoxicated individual, believing the presence of a designated driver diminishes their risk. This is a dangerous misconception. The server's obligation is to refuse further service to anyone visibly intoxicated, regardless of the presence of a designated driver.
• Lack of monitoring: Even if a designated driver is present, the server is still expected to monitor the intoxication levels of all patrons. The designated driver is not a guarantee against harm.

Specific Scenarios and Potential Liability

Let's examine a few scenarios to illustrate the complexities:

Scenario 1: A group of friends comes to a bar, and one person designates themselves as the designated driver. Throughout the evening, several members of the group become visibly intoxicated. The server continues to serve them alcohol, even though their intoxication is evident. Later, the designated driver, despite their initial intention, also becomes intoxicated and causes an accident. In this case, the server could potentially face liability due to their continued service of alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons, regardless of the existence of a designated driver.

Scenario 2: A lone patron comes to the bar and identifies themselves as the designated driver. They order several non-alcoholic drinks throughout the night. They become increasingly intoxicated and are clearly unsteady on their feet. The server, observing this change and the patron's obvious intoxication, continues to serve them alcohol. The patron drives home and causes an accident. Here, the server's liability is even more pronounced as the patron’s initial intention as a designated driver was clearly violated.

Scenario 3: A patron, initially sober, becomes visibly intoxicated over the course of the evening. A friend in the group offers to be the designated driver. The server cuts off service to the intoxicated patron once their impairment is clear. No accident occurs. In this scenario, the server likely avoided liability due to responsible service and immediate action upon observing visible intoxication.

Mitigating Risk: Best Practices for Servers and Establishments

To minimize the risk of liability, establishments must implement rigorous procedures for responsible alcohol service:

• Comprehensive Staff Training: Servers must receive comprehensive training on recognizing signs of intoxication, responsible alcohol service, and the legal implications of over-serving. This training should be regularly updated and reinforced.
• Refusal of Service Policy: Establishments need a clear and consistently enforced policy for refusing service to visibly intoxicated individuals. This policy should be well-documented and communicated to all staff.
• Server Observation and Intervention: Servers must be actively vigilant in monitoring patrons' alcohol consumption and intervening when intoxication becomes evident.
• Designated Driver Programs: Implementing a robust designated driver program which promotes awareness and responsible drinking is beneficial, but it is not a shield against liability for over-service.
• Documentation of Incidents: Maintain accurate records of incidents involving suspected intoxication, service refusal, and any subsequent interactions with law enforcement.
• Surveillance Systems: Implementing robust CCTV surveillance systems can provide crucial evidence in the event of a legal dispute.
• Third-Party Intervention: Utilizing a third-party security team can provide further oversight and assistance in managing intoxicated patrons.

Conclusion: The Importance of Responsible Service

The issue of server liability regarding designated drivers highlights the crucial importance of responsible alcohol service. While the presence of a designated driver doesn't eliminate the potential for liability, it's a factor that could be considered in the overall circumstances of the case. However, the primary responsibility remains with the establishment to prevent over-service and ensure the safety of their patrons and the public. Robust training, clear policies, and vigilant monitoring are critical in mitigating risk and fulfilling the ethical and legal responsibilities associated with serving alcohol. The potential consequences of neglecting these responsibilities—both financially and reputationally—are significant. By prioritizing responsible alcohol service, establishments can safeguard themselves, their patrons, and the community.