The decedent and two friends went to a bar and were asked to leave after they became visibly intoxicated. They left without the decedent’s car keys. A bar employee found the keys and picked the keys up. When Decedent and her friends discovered they had forgotten her keys, they returned to the bar, still visibly intoxicated. The bar employee returned the keys to the decedent, and they left. Decedent drove away from the bar, lost control of her vehicle, and was killed.
Decedent’s estate filed suit against the bar and its employee, claiming the employee’s actions in returning the car keys to a person who was visibly drunk was negligence. The trial court dismissed the case and the Court of Appeals agreed.
The Court of Appeals noted that Michigan’s dramshop act, MCL 436.1801, is the sole and exclusive remedy for a person who is injured by a visibly intoxicated person arising out of the unlawful sale or furnishing of alcohol. And, under the dramshop act, the visibly intoxicated person and his or her family are denied recovery. MCL 436.1801(2),(9). Thus, the only question in this case was whether that result is altered by the fact that the alleged act of negligence was the defendant-bar employee giving the decedent her car keys, not the act of furnishing her alcohol. The Court of Appeals answered in the negative. Although a retail establishment can still remain liable for actions arising out of negligence other than the sale or furnishing of alcohol, the test is whether the common law recognizes a cause of action for the negligent conduct, if the person were not intoxicated. Intoxication is taken out of the equation. For example, if a patron slipped and fell on the bar’s premises, a premises liability action could be brought. However, In this case, there is no ordinary common-law action for the furnishing of keys to an unintoxicated patron. Giving keys to an unintoxicated patron is perfectly legal. Therefore, the decedent’s estate was denied recovery.
What this means for bar patrons:
If you are injured after leaving a bar in an intoxicated condition, you do not have a cause of action against the bar. This result is not changed by your claim that the bar should not have given you your car keys or other similar actions that caused you to be able to drive.
You can read the entire opinion here.
Authored by Barbara A. Assendelft