Code of Alabama
Ala. Code § 6-5-70 (2026)
Furnishing Liquor to Minors.
✓ official Alabama Legislature (ALISON) text, current July 2026
Either parent of a minor, guardian, or a person standing in loco parentis to the minor having neither father nor mother shall have a right of action against any person who unlawfully sells or furnishes spirituous liquors to such minor and may recover such damages as the jury may assess, provided the person selling or furnishing liquor to the minor had knowledge of or was chargeable with notice or knowledge of such minority. Only one action may be commenced for each offense under this section.
(Code 1907, §2467; Code 1923, §5673; Code 1940, T. 7, §120.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 18
cases, 1980–2000 · leading case: Maples v. Chinese Palace, Inc., 389 So. 2d 120 (Ala. 1980).
Maples v. Chinese Palace, Inc., 389 So. 2d 120 (Ala. 1980). “Either parent of a minor, guardian or a person standing in loco parentis to the minor having neither father nor mother shall have a right of action against any person who unlawfully sells or furnishes spirituous liquors to such minor and may recover such damages as the jury may…”
Espey v. Convenience Marketers, 578 So. 2d 1221 (Ala. 1991). “("Convenience"), alleging, among other claims, that they were entitled to damages from Convenience pursuant to Ala.Code 1975, §§ 6-5-70 and -71. James A.”
Laymon v. Braddock, 544 So. 2d 900 (Ala. 1989). “Jones, Braddock, and Carson with negligence, wantonness, and violations of Ala. Code 1975, §§ 6-5-70 and 6-5-71. At the close of all the evidence, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of Braddock and Carson on the common law counts of negligence and wantonness and on the…”
Parker v. Miller Brewing Co., 560 So. 2d 1030 (Ala. 1990). “She attempted to state a claim against the defendants *1032 based upon Code 1975, § 6-5-70 (the "Civil Damages Act"), § 6-5-71 (the "Dram Shop Act"), and/or common law negligence.”
King v. Nat'l Spa & Pool Inst., 607 So. 2d 1241 (Ala. 1992). “1980), which was decided only a few months after Merrell , in construing Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-70, I stated, "I think that the words `such damages as the jury may assess' are broad enough to include the assessment of compensatory damages.”
Kelley v. Ryals Servs., Inc., 585 So. 2d 1371 (Ala. 1991). “Kelley, as the father of Michael Kelley, appeals from the dismissal of this action seeking damages under Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-70. We reverse and remand.”
Adkison v. Thompson, 650 So. 2d 859 (Ala. 1994). “They contend that the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment on the claims raised under Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-70, the “Civil Damages Act,” and § 6-5-71, the “Dram Shop Act.”
Butler v. Beer Across Am., 83 F. Supp. 2d 1261 (N.D. Ala. 2000). “See Ala. Code § 6-5-70 (1993). On August 6, 1999 defendants timely removed the action to this Court; removal was based upon diversity of citizenship given that plaintiff is a citizen of Alabama and that the defendants are three related Illinois corporations engaged in the…”
Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So. 2d 1042 (Ala. 1988). “" This was in reference to § 6-5-70 ("Furnishing liquor to minors"), Code 1975, known as the Civil Damage Act, which is as follows: "Either parent of a minor, guardian or a person standing in loco parentis to the minor having neither father nor mother shall have a right of…”
McLeod v. Cannon Oil Corp., 603 So. 2d 889 (Ala. 1992). “McLeod (Deon McLeod's father), appeals from a judgment entered on a jury verdict for defendant Cannon Oil Corporation in an action brought under the Civil Damages Act, Alabama Code 1975, § 6-5-70, which provides a cause of action for the illegal sale of alcoholic beverages to…”
Jones v. BP Oil Co., Inc., 632 So. 2d 435 (Ala. 1993). “Further, we ruled that the "totality of the circumstances" test available under the Civil Damages Act, Ala.Code 1975, § 6-5-70, is inapplicable in actions based on the Dram Shop Act.”
James v. Brewton Motel Mgmt., Inc., 570 So. 2d 1225 (Ala. 1990). “[2] James's estate appealed but did not raise any issues on appeal.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.