Dram Shop Liability Complaint

notes and remove before filing.
-->

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 - Negligence Per Se (Violation of HRS Chapter 281)
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 visibly intoxicated person or 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. Social host liability is less clearly established.

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.

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 visibly intoxicated, as evidenced by:

☐ 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 should have known the Intoxicated Person was intoxicated at the time of service.

10. Despite these observable signs, 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 commercial purveyor of alcoholic beverages owes a duty of care not to serve alcohol to visibly intoxicated patrons when doing so creates a foreseeable risk of harm to third parties.

15. The Licensee Defendant owed a duty of care to Plaintiff and to the general public not to serve alcoholic beverages to the Intoxicated Person when the person was visibly intoxicated.

16. The Licensee Defendant breached this duty by continuing to serve the Intoxicated Person despite observable signs of intoxication.

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

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

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

COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE PER SE (Violation of HRS Chapter 281)

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

21. HRS Chapter 281 and the rules promulgated thereunder prohibit the sale or service of alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons and minors.

22. The Licensee Defendant violated these provisions by selling or serving alcoholic beverages to the Intoxicated Person who was visibly intoxicated.

23. This statutory violation constitutes negligence per se, or at minimum, evidence of negligence.

24. Plaintiff is within the class of persons the statute was designed to protect, and the harm suffered is the type of harm the statute was intended to prevent.

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

DAMAGES

26. 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

27. 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
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 Chapter 281 as Evidence: Violations of liquor control laws serve as evidence of breach of duty / negligence per se.
• Comparative Fault: Hawaii applies comparative negligence; the jury allocates fault among all parties, including the intoxicated person. This may reduce the plaintiff's recovery.
• Licensee Insurance: HRS Chapter 281 requires licensees to maintain insurance, which may provide a source of recovery.
• Social Host Liability: Less clearly established than commercial provider liability; consult counsel.
• Statute of Limitations: Two years from date of injury (HRS § 657-7).

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Ono v. Applegate, 612 P.2d 533 (Haw. 1980)
• HRS Chapter 281 (Liquor Control)
• HRS § 657-7 (Statute of Limitations)