TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Important Notice - Delaware Law
2. Caption
3. Parties
4. Jurisdiction and Venue
5. Factual Allegations
6. Count I - Common Law Negligence
7. Count II - Negligent Entrustment / Service to a Minor
8. Count III - Negligent Undertaking (Restatement § 324A)
9. Damages
10. Jury Demand
11. Prayer for Relief
12. Verification
13. State-Specific Notes
14. Sources and References

IMPORTANT NOTICE - DELAWARE LAW

Delaware does NOT have a dram shop statute. The Delaware Supreme Court has consistently held that there is no common-law cause of action against a person who sells or furnishes alcoholic beverages for injuries caused by an intoxicated person.

Key Precedent:
- Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (Del. 1981): The Delaware Supreme Court held that no common-law right of action exists against a tavern owner for injuries caused by an intoxicated patron.
- DiOssi v. Maroney, 548 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1988): Limited recognition of social host liability in narrow circumstances involving adults who knowingly supply alcohol to minors.
- Barnes v. Hooper (Del. 2025): Reiterated that dram shop liability is not recognized at common law and must be created by statute.

Limited Alternatives: The theories presented in this complaint are narrow and face significant legal challenges in Delaware. They are provided as potential avenues of recovery but should not be relied upon without thorough legal analysis.

Legislative Proposals: The Delaware legislature has considered dram shop legislation (e.g., "Shaun's Law" / HB 428), but no statute has been enacted as of the date of this template.

CAPTION

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE
IN AND FOR [________________________________] COUNTY

[________________________________],
Plaintiff,

v.

[________________________________] (d/b/a [________________________________]),
Defendant(s).

C.A. No.: [________________________________]

PARTIES

1. Plaintiff [________________________________] is a resident of [________________________________] County, Delaware, and is the person injured as a result of the acts described herein.

2. Defendant [________________________________] (hereinafter "Provider Defendant") is a person or entity that sold, furnished, or served alcoholic beverages to the Intoxicated Person, operating as [________________________________], located at [________________________________], Delaware.

3. [________________________________] (hereinafter "Intoxicated Person") was at all relevant times a person who was served alcoholic beverages by the Provider Defendant.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 10 Del. C. § 541.

5. Venue is proper in this County because the acts giving rise to this claim occurred in [________________________________] County, Delaware.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On or about [__/__/____], the Intoxicated Person was present at the Provider Defendant's establishment at [________________________________].

7. The Provider Defendant, through its agents, employees, or servants, sold, furnished, or served alcoholic beverages to the Intoxicated Person.

8. At the time of service, the Intoxicated Person exhibited visible signs of intoxication, including:

☐ Slurred speech
☐ Unsteady gait or impaired balance
☐ Glassy, bloodshot, or unfocused eyes
☐ Aggressive, threatening, or disorderly behavior
☐ Difficulty with motor coordination
☐ Other: [________________________________]

9. Despite these observable signs, the Provider Defendant continued to serve alcoholic beverages.

10. Following service, the Intoxicated Person [________________________________] [describe injurious conduct].

11. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered injuries including but not limited to [________________________________].

COUNT I - COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE

12. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 11.

13. The Provider Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff arising from [________________________________] [describe the basis for duty, e.g., special relationship, control of premises, prior knowledge of danger, or undertaking to protect].

14. The Provider Defendant breached this duty by [________________________________].

15. The Provider Defendant's breach was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

16. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered damages as set forth herein.

COUNT II - NEGLIGENT SERVICE TO A MINOR

17. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 11.

18. At the time of service, the Intoxicated Person was under the age of twenty-one (21), being [____] years of age.

19. The Provider Defendant knew or should have known the Intoxicated Person was a minor.

20. The Provider Defendant owed a special duty to refrain from furnishing alcoholic beverages to a minor.

21. The Provider Defendant breached this duty by knowingly supplying alcohol to the minor.

22. The Provider Defendant's breach was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

COUNT III - NEGLIGENT UNDERTAKING (Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A)

23. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 through 11.

24. The Provider Defendant undertook to [________________________________] [describe the undertaking, e.g., "monitor patron intoxication levels," "provide responsible beverage service," "maintain security to prevent intoxicated patrons from driving"].

25. The Provider Defendant negligently performed this undertaking by [________________________________].

26. Plaintiff relied upon or was within the class of persons protected by this undertaking.

27. The Provider Defendant's negligent performance was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

DAMAGES

28. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff has suffered:

☐ Past and future medical expenses: $[________________________________]
☐ Past and future lost wages and earning capacity: $[________________________________]
☐ Pain and suffering: $[________________________________]
☐ Mental anguish and emotional distress: $[________________________________]
☐ Loss of enjoyment of life: $[________________________________]
☐ Property damage: $[________________________________]
☐ Other: [________________________________]

JURY DEMAND

29. Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court:

a. Enter judgment against Defendant(s) and in favor of Plaintiff;
b. Award compensatory damages in an amount to be determined at trial;
c. Award pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
d. Award costs of this action;
e. Grant such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

VERIFICATION

STATE OF DELAWARE
COUNTY OF [________________________________]

I, [________________________________], being duly sworn, state that I have read the foregoing Complaint and that the facts stated therein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

_____________________________________________
[________________________________], Plaintiff

Sworn to and subscribed before me this [____] day of [________________________________], [____].

_____________________________________________
Notary Public
My Commission Expires: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________________________
[________________________________]
Attorney for Plaintiff
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
Delaware Bar ID No.: [________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

• NO DRAM SHOP STATUTE: Delaware has not enacted a dram shop statute.
• No Common-Law Dram Shop Action: Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (Del. 1981) -- no common-law liability for tavern owners for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons.
• Limited Social Host Liability: DiOssi v. Maroney, 548 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1988) -- narrow recognition of liability for adults who knowingly supply alcohol to minors.
• Barnes v. Hooper (2025): Reiterated that dram shop liability must be created by statute.
• Legislative Efforts: "Shaun's Law" (HB 428) was proposed but has not been enacted.
• Alternative Theories: Plaintiffs must rely on general negligence, negligent entrustment, or Restatement § 324A theories, all of which face significant obstacles.
• Statute of Limitations: Two years for personal injury (10 Del. C. § 8119).
• Comparative Negligence: Delaware applies modified comparative negligence; plaintiff's recovery is barred if plaintiff's fault exceeds 50%.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Wright v. Moffitt, 437 A.2d 554 (Del. 1981)
• DiOssi v. Maroney, 548 A.2d 1361 (Del. 1988)
• Barnes v. Hooper (Del. 2025)
• 10 Del. C. § 8119 (Statute of Limitations)
• Restatement (Second) of Torts § 324A