harm caused by an intoxicated per-
son off premises in the absence of a
special relationship between the
tavern and the person harmed, or
between the tavern and the actor
who caused the harm," the majority
opinion reads. "Absent such a rela-
tionship, the court held the tavern
does not owe a duty to the injured
party to prevent the harm caused by
the intoxicated patron."
be held liable for the actions of their
patrons. The Maryland Court of Ap-
peals in the past has heard cases
evoking the necessity of a change in
the law, but that change would have
to come from an action by the Gen-
eral Assembly, according to majority
opinion released last week.
themselves and Dogfish and, there-
fore, there cannot be any duty owed
to them by the tavern with respect to
the harm caused by a third person,"
the opinion reads. "Simply put, we just
do not recognize a duty. Instead, we
adhere to the principle that human be-
ings, drunk or sober, are responsible
for their own torts."
pointed out the staggering statistics
of bar and restaurant patrons drink-
ing and driving and later causing ser-
ious and often fatal accidents. The
ty's ruling a missed opportunity.
nity to impose dram shop liability on
commercial vendors of alcohol that
continue to serve patrons after they
are visibly under the influence," the
dissenting opinion reads. "Scientific
studies have consistently found
strong evidence showing that dram
shop liability reduces motor vehicle
crash deaths in general, and alcohol-
related crash deaths in particular."
to be held liable for the actions of
their patrons, management and
staff would be more diligent in not
over-serving intoxicated guests.
opinion reads. "It would create
stronger incentives for bar owners
to abide by the existing requirement
that they avoid serving patrons that
are already visibly under the influ-
ence of alcohol."
shop issue anew.
compared against ensuring that a
person visibly under the influence of
alcohol is not served further alco-
holic drinks, the scales tip over-
whelmingly in favor of imposing a
duty on the bar establishments," the
dissenting opinion reads.