A. A licensee is liable for property damage and personal injuries or is liable to a person who may bring an action for wrongful death pursuant to section 12-612, or both, if a court or jury finds all of the following:
1. The licensee sold spirituous liquor either to a purchaser who was obviously intoxicated, or to a purchaser under the legal drinking age without requesting identification containing proof of age or with knowledge that the person was under the legal drinking age.
2. The purchaser consumed the spirituous liquor sold by the licensee.
3. The consumption of spirituous liquor was a proximate cause of the injury, death or property damage.
B. No licensee is chargeable with knowledge of previous acts by which a person becomes intoxicated at other locations unknown to the licensee unless the person was obviously intoxicated. If the licensee operates under a restaurant license, the finder of fact shall not consider any information obtained as a result of a restaurant audit conducted pursuant to section 4-213 unless the court finds the information relevant.
C. For the purposes of subsection A, paragraph 2 of this section, if it is found that an underage person purchased spirituous liquor from a licensee and such underage person incurs or causes injuries or property damage as a result of the consumption of spirituous liquor within a reasonable period of time following the sale of the spirituous liquor, it shall create a rebuttable presumption that the underage person consumed the spirituous liquor sold to such person by the licensee.
D. For the purposes of this section, "obviously intoxicated" means inebriated to such an extent that a person's physical faculties are substantially impaired and the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction that would have been obvious to a reasonable person.
Notes of Decisions
Est. of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents, 866 P.2d 1330 (Ariz. 1994).
· cites it 13× “” This act had only two sections, designated §§ 4-311 and 4-312. In pertinent part, the first provides: Liability for serving intoxicated person or minor; definition A.”
Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming Enter., 129 P.3d 78 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 13× “In a footnote in his reply brief, Filer argues that defendant Eugene Rose, in whose name the Gaming Enterprise's liquor license is held, "can arguably be held liable under Ariz.Rev.Stat. § 4-311 for the overservice of Mr.”
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc., 153 P.3d 1064 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 14× “The Court in granting this Motion finds that for purposes of this Motion, the third party Dawn Roque was “obviously intoxicated” as defined by A.R.S. § 4-311, requiring the Defendant to take reasonable steps to protect the public safety.”
Andrews v. Eddie's Place, Inc., 16 P.3d 801 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 7× “” Appellant counters that, because her cause of action asserts negligence liability against appellee “pursuant to A.R.S. § 4-311 and Arizona common law,” the trial court should have applied § 12-542.”
Callender v. Mco Props., 885 P.2d 123 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 9× “§ 4-101(19) nor subject to liability under A.R.S. § 4-311 and § 4-301. Defendant MCO Properties also is not a supplier of liquor under common law liability of suppliers of liquor.”
Callender v. Transpacific Hotel Corp., 880 P.2d 1103 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 4× “2 In a related argument, Callender contends that A.R.S. § 4-311, which codified a licensee's liability for serving minors or intoxicated people, does not abrogate a liquor licensee’s “common law duty” to sell alcohol “reasonably under the circumstances.”
Booth v. State, 83 P.3d 61 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “2d 200, 212 (1983) (despite legislative silence, overruling common-law rule protecting tavern owners from liability for the acts of intoxicated customers), superseded by A.R.S. §§ 4-311, 4-312. For this reason, immunity is the exception and not the rule.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311(A) — 10 cases
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc., 153 P.3d 1064 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“The Court in granting this Motion finds that for purposes of this Motion, the third party Dawn Roque was “obviously intoxicated” as defined by A.R.S. § 4-311, requiring the Defendant to take reasonable steps to protect the public safety.”
Est. of Hernandez v. Bd. of Regents, 866 P.2d 1330 (Ariz. 1994).
“” This act had only two sections, designated §§ 4-311 and 4-312. In pertinent part, the first provides: Liability for serving intoxicated person or minor; definition A.”
Callender v. Mco Props., 885 P.2d 123 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
“§ 4-101(19) nor subject to liability under A.R.S. § 4-311 and § 4-301. Defendant MCO Properties also is not a supplier of liquor under common law liability of suppliers of liquor.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311(A)(1) — 2 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311(A)(3) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311(C) — 3 cases
Patterson v. Thunder Pass, Inc., 153 P.3d 1064 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“The Court in granting this Motion finds that for purposes of this Motion, the third party Dawn Roque was “obviously intoxicated” as defined by A.R.S. § 4-311, requiring the Defendant to take reasonable steps to protect the public safety.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311(D) — 6 cases
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 4-311(a)(l) — 1 case
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.