Dram Shop Liability Complaint - Hawaii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Important Notice - Hawaii Law
2. Caption
3. Parties
4. Jurisdiction and Venue
5. Factual Allegations
6. Count I - Common Law Negligence (Dram Shop)
7. Count II - Alternative Breach Theory (HRS § 281-78)
8. Damages
9. Jury Demand
10. Prayer for Relief
11. Verification
12. State-Specific Notes
13. Sources and References

IMPORTANT NOTICE - HAWAII LAW

Hawaii does not have a statutory dram shop act. However, the Hawaii Supreme Court in Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533 (Haw. 1980) recognized a common-law negligence cause of action against commercial alcohol suppliers (taverns, bars, licensees) who serve intoxicated patrons when the patron's intoxication causes injury to a third party.

Key Principles:

• Violations of HRS Chapter 281 (liquor control laws), such as serving a person the licensee knows or has reason to know is under the influence, or serving a minor, serve as evidence of breach of duty.
• The claim is based on ordinary negligence principles: duty, breach, proximate cause, and damages.
• Comparative fault applies; the jury allocates fault among all parties, including the intoxicated person.
• This common-law claim applies to commercial suppliers/licensees. HRS § 663-41 separately addresses alcohol supplied by an adult to a person under 21 when that intoxicated person causes injury or damage.
• An injured third party may bring a claim against a liquor licensee even if the person actively contributed to the driver's intoxication. That conduct may affect comparative fault; the intoxicated driver is differently situated. See Kuahiwinui v. Zelo's, Inc., 142 Hawaiʻi 479 (2019).

CAPTION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE [________________________________] CIRCUIT
STATE OF HAWAII

[________________________________],
Plaintiff,

v.

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

Civil No.: [________________________________]

PARTIES

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

2. Defendant [________________________________] (hereinafter "Licensee Defendant") is a person or entity holding a liquor license under HRS Chapter 281, operating as [________________________________], located at [________________________________], Hawaii.

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

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to HRS § 603-21.5. The amount of damages sought is within the minimum jurisdictional limits of this Court.

5. Venue is proper in this circuit because the acts giving rise to this claim occurred in the [________________________________] Circuit, Hawaii.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. On or about [__/__/____], the Intoxicated Person entered the Licensee Defendant's premises at [________________________________].

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

8. At the time of continued service, the Intoxicated Person was under the influence of liquor. Facts showing what the Licensee Defendant knew or had reason to know include [DESCRIBE ALL APPLICABLE FACTS, INCLUDING ANY SIGNS OBSERVED]:

☐ Slurred speech
☐ Unsteady gait or impaired balance
☐ Glassy, bloodshot, or unfocused eyes
☐ Aggressive, loud, or erratic behavior
☐ Impaired motor coordination
☐ Strong odor of alcohol
☐ Other: [________________________________]

9. The Licensee Defendant knew or had reason to know the Intoxicated Person was under the influence of liquor at the time of service because [________________________________].

10. Despite that knowledge or reason to know, the Licensee Defendant continued to serve alcoholic beverages.

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

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

COUNT I - COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE (DRAM SHOP)

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

14. As recognized in Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533 (Haw. 1980), a liquor licensee owes a duty not to serve alcohol to a person it knows or has reason to know is under the influence of liquor when doing so creates a foreseeable risk of harm to third parties.

15. The Licensee Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff not to serve alcoholic beverages to the Intoxicated Person when the Licensee Defendant knew or had reason to know that person was under the influence of liquor.

16. The Licensee Defendant breached this duty by continuing to serve the Intoxicated Person despite the facts alleged in paragraphs 8 through 10.

17. The Licensee Defendant knew or should have known that serving additional alcohol to a person under the influence created a foreseeable risk of harm to others.

18. The Licensee Defendant's breach was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

19. Plaintiff was injured by the Intoxicated Person's conduct and was not the intoxicated driver. Any conduct by Plaintiff relating to the driver's intoxication is subject to comparative-fault analysis.

20. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff has suffered damages as set forth herein.

COUNT II - ALTERNATIVE BREACH THEORY (HRS § 281-78)

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

22. HRS § 281-78(b)(1)(A)-(B) prohibits a licensee or its employee from selling, serving, or furnishing liquor to a minor or a person then under the influence of liquor.

23. The Licensee Defendant violated these provisions by selling or serving alcoholic beverages to the Intoxicated Person while that person was under the influence of liquor.

24. The Licensee Defendant's violation of § 281-78 is evidence that it breached the duty of care described in Count I, to be weighed with the other evidence of negligence.

25. Plaintiff is an injured third party within the class the liquor licensee's duty was designed to protect, and the harm suffered is the type of harm that duty was intended to prevent.

26. The Licensee Defendant's violation was a proximate cause of Plaintiff's injuries.

DAMAGES

27. 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

28. 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 equitable.

VERIFICATION

STATE OF HAWAII

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, State of Hawaii

Printed name of notary: [____________________________]

[OFFICIAL NOTARIAL STAMP OR SEAL]
My Commission Expires: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________________________________
[________________________________]
Attorney for Plaintiff
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
HSBA No.: [________________________________]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

STATE-SPECIFIC NOTES

• No Statutory Dram Shop Act: Hawaii has no dram shop statute.
• Common-Law Liability Recognized: Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533 (Haw. 1980) established common-law negligence liability for commercial alcohol suppliers.
• HRS § 281-78 and Breach: Its service prohibitions inform the duty and breach allegations of the common-law negligence claim.
• Comparative Fault: Hawaii applies comparative negligence; the jury allocates fault among all parties, including the intoxicated person. This may reduce the plaintiff's recovery.
• Third-party claim and comparative fault: Kuahiwinui v. Zelo's, Inc., 142 Hawaiʻi 479 (2019), rejects a separate complicity bar. A passenger's active contribution to the driver's intoxication may be considered under comparative negligence but does not itself bar a claim against the licensee. The intoxicated driver is differently situated.
• Damages pleading: HRS § 663-1.3 prohibits a specific damages amount in a personal-injury tort complaint. Request general relief and state that the amount is within the court's minimum jurisdictional limits.
• Licensee Insurance: HRS Chapter 281 requires licensees to maintain insurance, which may provide a source of recovery.
• Social Host Liability: HRS § 663-41 imposes liability on an adult who supplies alcohol to a person under 21, or knowingly permits underage drinking on controlled premises when reasonably able to prevent it, for injuries or damage caused by the intoxicated underage person. Licensed sales under Chapter 281 are excluded. Johnston v. KFC National Management Co., 71 Haw. 229 (1990), declined a common-law duty for social hosts serving adults in the circumstances before the court.
• Statute of Limitations: HRS § 657-7 generally uses two years after accrual for an action seeking compensation for injury to a person or property, subject to § 657-13. Determine accrual and any special rule; do not automatically use the injury date.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533 (Haw. 1980)
• Kuahiwinui v. Zelo's, Inc., 142 Hawaiʻi 479 (2019) — https://www.courts.state.hi.us/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/SCWC-13-0001803.pdf
• HRS § 663-1.3 (damages pleading) — https://data.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/Vol13_Ch0601-0676/HRS0663/HRS_0663-0001_0003.htm
• HRS Chapter 281 (Liquor Control)
• HRS § 657-7 (Statute of Limitations)