Ohio dram shop update: Knowledge of noticeable intoxication required for liability under Ohio Dram Shop Act

On March 3, the Ohio Court of Appeals for Stark County held that actual knowledge of intoxication is a necessary component in maintaining a claim for relief under Ohio’s Dram Shop Act.

In W. Res. Group v. Shingler, 2025-Ohio-726, Plaintiff Western Reserve was an insurance company for Sylvester’s North End Grille (“Sylvesters”). On Sept. 28, 2021, Defendant Nichole Shingler (“Shingler”) drove while intoxicated and crashed her car into Sylvesters, resulting in extensive damage to the restaurant’s infrastructure and lost business. Shingler had been drinking at The Basement with a group of friends and her bar receipt showed that she paid for two vodka drinks, a shot of malibu rum, two Jameson pickleback shots, a 22oz long island iced tea, and chicken tenders. There was a dispute as to whether Shingler drank all the drinks herself and whether she drank additional drinks that others may have purchased for her. What was not disputed was that after Shingler came out of the restroom of The Basement slurring her words, with her makeup and hair disheveled, and stumbling and falling off her barstool, an employee of the bar took her keys and handed them to a person who identified themself to be Shingler’s designated driver. The employee had no knowledge of serving Shingler after she noticed Shingler was visibly intoxicated and remembered that Shingler was ‘cut off’ by both bartenders.

About the Ohio Dram Shop Act

Historically bars and taverns selling alcohol were called “dram shops.” Laws establishing legal liability for injuries by intoxicated patrons are known generally as “dram shop liability laws.” In Ohio, commercial establishments that sell alcohol can be held legally responsible for damages caused by an intoxicated patron. Dram shop liability laws cover Ohio liquor permit holders such as bars, restaurants, and any other commercial establishment that sells alcohol.

Ohio’s Dram Shop Act precludes common law claims against liquor permit holders, i.e., it is the exclusive remedy for all claims against liquor permit holders arising from alcohol sales to persons who then injure a third party. The Montgomery court further held that in order to be liable under the Ohio Dram Shop Act, a permit holder must “knowingly” sell alcohol to a “noticeably intoxicated” person.

W. Res Group v. Shingler

Western Reserve filed a complaint alleging negligence and seeking punitive damages against Shingler and dram shop liability against The Basement. The Basement moved for summary judgment on the dram shop claim. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding that “Plaintiffs have not provided the Court with any evidence that would establish that [The Basement] served Defendant Shingler when she was “noticeably intoxicated” as required by R.C. 4399.18.”

R.C. 4399.18 provides in pertinent part:

A person has a cause of action against a permit holder or an employee of a permit holder for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder’s control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence:

(A) The permit holder or an employee of the permit holder knowingly sold an intoxicating beverage to at least one of the following:

(1) A noticeably intoxicated person in violation of division (B) of section 4301.22 of the Revised Code;

(2) A person in violation of section 4301.69 of the Revised Code.

(B) The person’s intoxication proximately caused the personal injury, death, or property damage.

R.C. 4301.22(B) provides, “No permit holder and no agent or employee of a permit holder shall sell or furnish beer or intoxicating liquor to an intoxicated person.”

The trial court found, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, that “the deposition testimony demonstrates that, upon seeing that Defendant Shingler was exhibiting signs of being “noticeably intoxicated” after returning from the restroom, she was not served any additional alcoholic beverages by [The Basement] … [and in fact, The Basement] confiscated her car keys upon observing her behavior and gave the keys to her designated driver.”

Western Reserve appealed the dismissal. The issue before the Court of Appeal was whether under Ohio’s Dram Shop statute, Sylvester’s, the permit holder, or the bar employees must have knowingly served Shingler intoxicating beverages after she showed signs of being visibly intoxicated or if constructive knowledge, such as the blood alcohol content or additional unaccounted for drinks on the bar tab or purchased by other bar customers, was sufficient for relief under R.C. 4301.22. The court of appeals concluded that “actual knowledge of intoxication is a necessary component in fashioning a justiciable claim for relief under R.C. 4301.22.”

Key Takeaway

In order to maintain an Ohio Dram Shop Act action against a vendor of alcohol beverages, a plaintiff must prove that a permit holder had actual knowledge of intoxication before serving alcoholic drinks to patrons like Shingler.

Law Clerk Lauren Tesler contributed to this article. 

This publication is intended for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or a solicitation to provide legal services. The information in this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, a lawyer-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel. The views and opinions expressed herein represent those of the individual author only and are not necessarily the views of Clark Hill PLC. Although we attempt to ensure that postings on our website are complete, accurate, and up to date, we assume no responsibility for their completeness, accuracy, or timeliness.