Tennessee DUI Bars

Have you ever wondered why you never hear about holding bars liable for Tennessee DUI accidents? Over and over again you hear about how to punish the Tennessee DUI driver, but no one really mentions the bars, not even MADD, why don't we rewrite the Dram shop Act in Tennessee and put some teeth into it. In Tennessee for anyone to hold a bar liable for serving someone until visible intoxication (and they harm someone in a wreck) they have to be shown to have served that person, knowing beyond a reasonable doubt that the person they are serving is intoxicated, including every element of the visibly intoxicated person standard definition as defined by the Tennessee Alcohol Bureau. This is the same standard that you have to meet to convict someone in a jury trial of murder. This is such a high standard to meet that it keeps most bars from being liable in the event they serve someone to the point of visible intoxication, and that person hurts another person. http://nashvilleduiinfo.com

Under Tennessee Code § 57-10-101, no judge or jury may pronounce a judgment awarding damages to or on behalf of any party who has suffered personal injury or death against any person who has sold any alcoholic beverage or beer, unless such jury of twelve (12) persons has first ascertained beyond a reasonable doubt that the sale by such person of the alcoholic beverage or beer was the proximate cause of the personal injury or death sustained and that such person:
(1) Sold the alcoholic beverage or beer to a person known to be under the age of twenty-one (21) years and such person caused the personal injury or death as the direct result of the consumption of the alcoholic beverage or beer so sold;or
(2) Sold the alcoholic beverage or beer to an obviously intoxicated person and such person caused the personal injury or death as the direct result of the consumption of the alcoholic beverage or beer so sold.

The legislature has passed the Responsible Vendors Act and the 1995 Alcohol Responsibility Act, these acts provided standards and tests that servers and clerks had to pass to be able to serve alcohol, and provided a responsible server and or clerk program. That seems pretty good, however some small things were missing. Why is the standard set at Beyond a Reasonable Doubt for each element of serving a visibly intoxicated person? Why is an visibly intoxicated person required, and not just an intoxicated person like the standard for a Tennessee DUI in criminal court.The first question is why are we at a Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard in a civil matter? If it is a civil lawsuit against a bar for serving someone to the point of intoxication then why not use the civil law standard of preponderance of the evidence, if it is good enough for every other action in civil court, then why is it not good enough to use against bars? Preponderance of the evidence is a much lower standard than Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. You must prove every element of this accusation and claim (serving a visibly intoxicated person) against a bar by Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard.

My only question remains, why does the civil law standard not apply to this civil law action in Tennessee.The second is the language that the Tennessee Alcohol Bureau (the legislature allowed the TAB to set the definition of what a visibly intoxicated person is) uses to establish the intoxication of a patron at a bar, by the server, it is visibly intoxicated, as apposed to intoxicated. In a criminal matter against a Tennessee DUI charged driver, it is not visibly intoxicated, it is intoxicated. So why not use the same standard, intoxicated should mean intoxicated no matter what courtroom your in, civil or criminal.

In civil trial law the standard for proving the other side is liable for your injuries is by a preponderance of the evidence, essentially a football field and you crossing the 50 yard line, so why cant we hold bars civilly liable based on this standard of by a preponderance of the evidence that they served someone to the point of visible intoxication? Why do the bars get to use a criminal standard of proof in a civil matter for their defense? Why is the Dram shop Act written to allow them a much less chance of being liable. It just makes no sense to allow bars a different standard in civil court to escape liability. Yet no one comes forward to change this law and apply a different standard for bars to be liable, the laws just continue to come forward to punish the first time offender of a Tennessee DUI more harshly.

Why not be fair and use the standard of preponderance of the evidence just like most all other civil cases use in civil court.

Posted by Daniel L. McMurtry at 1:00 PM 0