California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Kindt v. Kauffman, 129 Cal.Rptr. 603, 57 Cal.App.3d 845 (Cal. App. 1976):
There would be no converse prophylactic effect to society in terms of a deterrent to the tavern owner. We are fully aware of the practical difficulty of criminally and administratively policing section 25602 and of how such policing has been ineffective to stem the slaughter on our highways. But it simply does not follow that the creation of a rule of civil liability in favor of the patron would have any salutary effect. All that would occur would be that a rash of lawsuits would be filed by or in behalf of patrons of tavern owners, ranging from the patron who falls off his stool (Hitson v. Dwyer, supra) to the heirs of the patron who kills himself in his own shower at home, hours after his revelries (to say nothing of the inevitable plaintiff who will claim damages because his [57 Cal.App.3d 859] wife divorced him when he came home drunk and beat her). These lawsuits will bring about uniform substantial upward adjustments in liability insurance premiums. 5 Tavern owners will pay the higher premiums and appropriately increase their liquor prices to the public, with absolutely no reasonably foreseeable change in the rate of adherence to the Business and Professions Code section 25602 proscription.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.