Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 3-3-209 (2026)

Furnishing to alcoholics or intoxicated persons

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any person who shall sell, give away, or dispose of intoxicating liquor to an habitual drunkard or an intoxicated person shall be guilty of a violation and for the first offense be punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). For the second and subsequent offenses, he or she shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor. The penalties prescribed in this section shall be in addition to any other penalty prescribed by law.

History. Acts 1943, No. 218, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 48-901; Acts 2005, No. 1994, § 333.

Amendments. The 2005 amendment substituted “violation” for “misdemeanor” in the first sentence; and in the second sentence, inserted “or she” and “Class A” and deleted “and punishable by a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500) or by imprisonment in the county jail for not less than six (6) months nor more than one (1) year, or both so fined and imprisoned in the discretion of the court or jury” from the end.

Meaning of “this act”. See note to § 3-3-205.

Case Notes

Civil Liability.

This section is not a dramshop act; therefore, the trial court did not err in ruling that as a matter of law there was no proximate cause between violation of this section prohibiting the sale of beer to a minor and the accident which occurred when a minor lost control of his vehicle while opening a bottle of beer. Milligan v. County Line Liquor, Inc., 289 Ark. 129, 709 S.W.2d 409 (1986), overruled, Shannon v. Wilson, 329 Ark. 143, 947 S.W.2d 349 (1997).

This section and § 3-3-218 establish a high duty of care on the part of holders of alcohol licenses, which includes the duty not to sell alcohol to high-risk groups, including intoxicated persons, and evidence of the sale of alcohol by a licensed vendor to an intoxicated person is some evidence of negligence. Jackson v. Cadillac Club, Inc., 337 Ark. 24, 986 S.W.2d 410 (1999).

Habitual Drunkards.

The sale of beer to habitual drunkards is a violation of this section. Wald v. State ex rel. Robinson, 196 Ark. 1180, 111 S.W.2d 553 (1937).

Intoxicating Liquor.

Section 3-1-102 does not define the term “intoxicating liquors” as it appears in this section. Digiacomo v. State, 194 Ark. 24, 105 S.W.2d 78 (1937) (decision under prior law).

Beer containing 5% alcohol is an intoxicating liquor within the meaning of this section. Wald v. State ex rel. Robinson, 196 Ark. 1180, 111 S.W.2d 553 (1937) (decision under prior law).

Cited: Bryant v. State, 246 Ark. 872, 440 S.W.2d 534 (1969); Alpha Zeta Chapter of Pi Kappa Alpha Fraternity v. Sullivan, 293 Ark. 576, 740 S.W.2d 127 (1987); Young v. Gastro-Intestinal Ctr., Inc., 361 Ark. 209, 205 S.W.3d 741 (2005).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1996–2009 · leading case: Jackson v. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 410 (Ark. 1999).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jackson v. Cadillac Cowboy, Inc., 986 S.W.2d 410 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 38× “See Ark.Code Ann. § 3-3-209 (Repl.1996). When we read this statute in conjunction with Act 695, it is clear to us, as it was in Shannon v.”

Cadillac Cowboy, Inc. v. Jackson, 69 S.W.3d 383 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 8× “Noting further that the General Assembly had deemed the sale of alcohol "to a habitual drunkard or an intoxicated person" to be a misdemeanor, Ark.Code Ann. § 3-3-209 (Repl.1996), we determined that the "weighty responsibility" placed by our state upon licensed vendors of…”

Young v. Gastro-Intestinal Ctr., Inc., 205 S.W.3d 741 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 6× “See Ark.Code Ann. § 3-3-209 (Repl.1996). When we read this statute in conjunction with Act 695, it is clear to us, as it was in Shannon v.”

Shannon v. Wilson, 947 S.W.2d 349 (Ark. 1997). · cites it 4× “We wrote, however, that, Even if the prohibition against the sale of liquor to an intoxicated person [the subject at hand; see Ark.Code Ann. § 3-3-209 (Repl.1996) ], had the comprehensive implications that the appellant attributes to it, [i.”

Tobias v. Sports Club, Inc., 474 S.E.2d 450 (S.C. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 2× “[6] Arkansas, Ark.Code Ann. § 3-3-209 (Michie 1996), Carr v.”

Bourgeois v. Vanderbilt, 639 F. Supp. 2d 958 (W.D. Ark. 2009). · cites it 2× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 3-3-209 . As set forth in Lane v.”

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.