The Fifth Rum and Coke
At 10:40 p.m. a man at a neighborhood tavern orders his fifth rum and Coke. He arrived at 8:00 and has been drinking quickly. At 10:10 the server noticed he was loud and knocked over a bar stool, but she served him the fourth drink because he is a regular and “never causes trouble.” At 10:50 he leaves alone in a pickup truck. At 11:20 he strikes a pedestrian in a crosswalk, breaking the pedestrian's leg. Two days later an investigator asks for receipts and the incident log. The bar has credit card slips but no incident log. The server says she did not think he was drunk. The policy manual says servers must document refusals, but staff have not been trained on it.
1. Explain how Ohio dram shop liability could apply to this bar and what facts will matter most.
Read the worked answer
Ohio's dram shop statute, ORC 4399.18, generally addresses civil liability where a permit holder or employee knowingly sells or furnishes alcohol to an intoxicated person, or to a person under 21, and that service is a proximate cause of injury. The key word is knowing: the question is what the server actually observed and what a reasonable person in her position should have recognized.
The facts that matter most:
- The stool incident at 10:10. This is a documented motor-control event before the fourth drink. It supports knowledge of impairment.
- The service pattern. Fifth drink, fast pace, and a regular who is trusted despite visible signs.
- The server's statement. “I didn't think he was drunk” is not a defense by itself; the test is whether the signs were apparent.
- Causation. The crash occurred 30 minutes after he left, and the investigation will trace the alcohol served.
- Records. Credit card slips can establish the number and timing of drinks. The absence of a log hurts the bar's ability to show monitoring or a cutoff.
Statutory damage caps may limit some exposure, but they do not eliminate litigation, insurance, or reputational cost.
2. What records should the bar have kept, and how would they change the defense?
Read the worked answer
The bar should have kept a contemporaneous incident or refusal log showing:
- Time the guest arrived and each drink served.
- Specific observations: loud volume, knocking over the stool, any slurred speech or unsteadiness.
- What the server did in response: slowed service, offered water or food, warned him, cut him off.
- Whether a manager was notified and what the manager decided.
- How he left and whether anyone tried to arrange a ride.
- Names of witnesses and staff on duty.
A good log does not erase liability, but it can show the bar exercised reasonable care, rebut a claim that no one noticed, and support a “we cut him off” defense. It also helps the insurer and attorney reconstruct events. Here, the credit card slips show service but not observation. The missing log leaves the bar with only the server's after-the-fact statement that she did not think he was drunk, which is weak against the stool incident. The lack of training on the policy manual further undercuts the defense because it suggests the documentation rule existed only on paper.
3. What specific policy changes would reduce this risk going forward?
Read the worked answer
Service-control changes:
- Train every server on observable impairment signs and on a standard refusal script.
- Require a manager notification for any cutoff, any guest who knocks over furniture, or any guest who is visibly loud and unsteady.
- Slow service for regulars and high-volume drinkers; do not let familiarity override signs.
- Offer water, food, and a ride proactively, and keep keys away from visibly impaired guests.
Documentation changes:
- Use a short incident log at the bar and in the POS.
- Record refusals in real time, not from memory two days later.
- Have the manager review and sign the log at closing.
Operational changes:
- Train and retrain staff on the policy manual, with sign-off.
- Audit receipts for fast service patterns and repeated doubles.
- Review the bar's insurance coverage and its reporting obligations after a serious incident.
The judgment point is that the bar's biggest failure was not a lack of a policy; it was the gap between the written policy and what staff actually did.