Every husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person who is injured in person, or property, or means of support by any intoxicated person, or in consequence of the intoxication of any person, has a right of action, in his or her name, against any person who, by selling or giving away intoxicating liquors to any habitually intoxicated person or person with an alcohol use disorder, causes the intoxication, in whole or in part, of such habitually intoxicated person or person with an alcohol use disorder; and all damages recovered by a minor pursuant to this section must be paid either to the minor or to his or her parent, guardian, or next friend, as the court directs. The unlawful sale or giving away of intoxicating liquors works a forfeiture of all rights of the lessee or tenant under any lease or contract of rent upon the premises. Liability must not accrue against any such person as provided unless the husband, wife, child, parent, guardian, or employer first, by written or printed notice, has notified such person, or his or her agents or employees, not to sell or give away any intoxicating liquors to any habitually intoxicated person or person with an alcohol use disorder.
Source: L. 1879: p. 92, § 1. G.S. § 1034. R.S. 08: § 2068. C.L. § 6308. CSA: C. 50, § 7. CRS 53: § 41-2-3. C.R.S. 1963: § 41-2-3. L. 2018: Entire section amended, (SB 18-091), ch. 35, p. 384, § 12, effective August 8. Cross references: (1) For provisions concerning the liability of persons who sell or serve alcoholic beverages to intoxicated persons or minors, see § 44-3-801.
(2) For the legislative declaration in SB 18-091, see section 1 of chapter 35, Session Laws of Colorado 2018.
Notes of Decisions
Largo Corp. v. Crespin, 727 P.2d 1098 (Colo. 1986).
· cites it 8× “Largo maintained that Colorado’s dramshop act, section 13-21-103, 6 C.R.S. (1973), provides the exclusive remedy against a tavern owner who negligently furnishes alcohol to an intoxicated person who thereafter injures a third party.”
Lyons v. Nasby, 770 P.2d 1250 (Colo. 1989).
· cites it 4× “The petitioner does not assert a claim under Colorado’s Dram Shop Act, section 13-21-103, 6A C.R.S. (1987). 2 Rather, she predicates her claim upon the common-law theories of negligence and negligence per se.”
Espadero v. Feld, 649 F. Supp. 1480 (D. Colo. 1986).
· cites it 6× “§ 13-21-103, Colorado’s “dram shop” statute, is conditioned on proof of written notice to the liquor establishment that a particular person is a habitual drunkard and should not be served alcohol.”
Crespin v. Largo Corp., 698 P.2d 826 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 9× “Largo next contends that the trial court erred in permitting a common law “dram shop” action to supplement and alter the existing statutory dram shop or civil damage act, (§ 13-21-103, C.R.S.) and in determining that a violation of § 12-47-128(l)(a), C.”
Felder v. Butler, 438 A.2d 494 (Md. 1981).
· cites it 2× “6 § 6-5-71 (1977); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-103 (1974); Conn.”
Anderson v. Moulder, 394 S.E.2d 61 (W. Va. 1990).
“Code § 6-5-71 (1975); Colo.Rev.Stat. § 13-21-103 (1973); Conn.Gen.”
Jarrett v. Woodward Bros., Inc., 751 A.2d 972 (D.C. 2000).
“1 (Deering 1999) (establishing cause of action by or on behalf of any person injured due to a licensee selling or giving alcoholic beverage to any obviously intoxicated minor); Colo. Rev. Stat § 13-21-103 (1997) (establishing right of action for selling or giving liquor to…”
Nelson v. Restaurants of Iowa, Inc., 338 N.W.2d 881 (Iowa 1983).
“Code § 105-1205 (Harrison Supp.1982) (only parents can recover for injuries resulting from sale of liquor to a minor); Ohio Rev.”
Moran v. Foodmaker, Inc., 594 A.2d 587 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 1991).
“1 (West 1984); Colorado, Colo. Rev.Stat. § 13-21-103 (1973); Connecticut, Conn.”
Lyons v. Nasby, 748 P.2d 1341 (Colo. Ct. App. 1987).
· cites it 2× “No claim is asserted under the “dram shop” provisions of § 13-21-103, C.R.S. In granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the trial court ruled that the “dram shop” provisions supplied the only remedy for injuries caused by intoxicated persons.”
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.