intoxicating beverages -- Liability of intoxicated person.
(1) The General Assembly finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating
beverages, rather than the serving, furnishing, or sale of such beverages, is the
proximate cause of any injury, including death and property damage, inflicted by an
intoxicated person upon himself or another person.
(2) Any other law to the contrary notwithstanding, no person holding a permit under
KRS Chapters 241 to 244, nor any agent, servant, or employee of the person, who
sells or serves intoxicating beverages to a person over the age for the lawful
purchase thereof, shall be liable to that person or to any other person or to the estate,
successors, or survivors of either for any injury suffered off the premises including
but not limited to wrongful death and property damage, because of the intoxication
of the person to whom the intoxicating beverages were sold or served, unless a
reasonable person under the same or similar circumstances should know that the
person served is already intoxicated at the time of serving.
(3) The intoxicated person shall be primarily liable with respect to injuries suffered by
third persons.
(4) The limitation of liability provided by this section shall not apply to any person who
causes or contributes to the consumption of alcoholic beverages by force or by
falsely representing that a beverage contains no alcohol.
(5) This section shall not apply to civil actions filed prior to July 15, 1988.
Effective: June 25, 2013
History: Amended 2013 Ky. Acts ch. 121, sec. 103, effective June 25, 2013. --
Amended 1998 Ky. Acts ch. 121, sec. 36, effective July 15, 1998. -- Created 1988
Ky. Acts ch. 434, sec. 1, effective July 15, 1988.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
26
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case:
Jackson v. Tullar, 285 S.W.3d 290 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
Jackson v. Tullar, 285 S.W.3d 290 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 19× “Jackson argues that the apportionment instruction given to the jury was correct, but that the trial court failed to properly follow KRS 413.241 after the jury rendered its verdict.”
DeStock 14, Inc. v. Logsdon, 993 S.W.2d 952 (Ky. 1999).
· cites it 12× “The Court of Appeals reversed both summary judgments and remanded the case to the McCracken Circuit Court for further proceedings.”
Carruthers v. Edwards, 395 S.W.3d 488 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 14× “Kentucky’s Dram Shop Act, KRS 413.241, provides, in pertinent part: (1) The General Assembly finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the serving, furnishing, or sale of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death…”
Taylor v. King, 345 S.W.3d 237 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 14× “The Estate sought a declaration that the Kentucky Dram Shop Act, KRS 413.241, is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits recovery of punitive damages against a seller or provider of alcohol.”
Sixty-Eight Liquors, Inc. v. Colvin, 118 S.W.3d 171 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 11× “*173 The following questions are before this Court: (1) whether Sixty-Eight Liquors, a licensed establishment that made an unlawful sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor, may be held liable for that minor’s death under KRS 413.241, if it is proven that his resultant…”
Recbar, LLC v. Drake, 579 S.W.3d 198 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 6× “Appellant asserts that a defense under KRS 413.241 is similar to "claims of governmental immunity or workers' compensation immunity," two circumstances in which it is recognized that an interlocutory appeal may be had.”
Watts Ex Rel. Watts v. K, S & H, 957 S.W.2d 233 (Ky. 1997).
· cites it 4× “2d 328 *236 (1987), but about four months before the effective date of KRS 413.241. That statute was specifically limited to actions filed after July 15, 1988; Grayson was not specifically stated to be either retroactive or prospective.”
Travelers Indem. Co. v. Reker, 100 S.W.3d 756 (Ky. 2003).
· cites it 2× “2d 952, 959 (1999) (KRS 413.241, which specifically addresses tort actions against dram shops, prevails over KRS 411.”
M.T. v. Saum, 3 F. Supp. 3d 617 (W.D. Ky. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Plaintiffs allege that New Image permitted an otherwise avoidable accident to occur because of their faulty pre-em-ployment investigation of Saum.”
Southard v. Belanger, 966 F. Supp. 2d 727 (W.D. Ky. 2013).
· cites it 2× “The Plaintiff concedes that “there is no evidence that Belanger should not have been hired.”
Smith v. Sewell, 858 S.W.2d 350 (Tex. 1993).
“1992); Ky.Rev.Stat.Ann. § 413.241 (1992); La.Rev.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.241(1) — 12 cases
DeStock 14, Inc. v. Logsdon, 993 S.W.2d 952 (Ky. 1999).
“The Court of Appeals reversed both summary judgments and remanded the case to the McCracken Circuit Court for further proceedings.”
Jackson v. Tullar, 285 S.W.3d 290 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“Jackson argues that the apportionment instruction given to the jury was correct, but that the trial court failed to properly follow KRS 413.241 after the jury rendered its verdict.”
Taylor v. King, 345 S.W.3d 237 (Ky. Ct. App. 2010).
“The Estate sought a declaration that the Kentucky Dram Shop Act, KRS 413.241, is unconstitutional to the extent that it prohibits recovery of punitive damages against a seller or provider of alcohol.”
Carruthers v. Edwards, 395 S.W.3d 488 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“Kentucky’s Dram Shop Act, KRS 413.241, provides, in pertinent part: (1) The General Assembly finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the serving, furnishing, or sale of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.241(2) — 13 cases
Jackson v. Tullar, 285 S.W.3d 290 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“Jackson argues that the apportionment instruction given to the jury was correct, but that the trial court failed to properly follow KRS 413.241 after the jury rendered its verdict.”
Carruthers v. Edwards, 395 S.W.3d 488 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“Kentucky’s Dram Shop Act, KRS 413.241, provides, in pertinent part: (1) The General Assembly finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the serving, furnishing, or sale of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death…”
DeStock 14, Inc. v. Logsdon, 993 S.W.2d 952 (Ky. 1999).
“The Court of Appeals reversed both summary judgments and remanded the case to the McCracken Circuit Court for further proceedings.”
Recbar, LLC v. Drake, 579 S.W.3d 198 (Ky. Ct. App. 2019).
“Appellant asserts that a defense under KRS 413.241 is similar to "claims of governmental immunity or workers' compensation immunity," two circumstances in which it is recognized that an interlocutory appeal may be had.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.241(3) — 8 cases
DeStock 14, Inc. v. Logsdon, 993 S.W.2d 952 (Ky. 1999).
“The Court of Appeals reversed both summary judgments and remanded the case to the McCracken Circuit Court for further proceedings.”
Jackson v. Tullar, 285 S.W.3d 290 (Ky. Ct. App. 2007).
“Jackson argues that the apportionment instruction given to the jury was correct, but that the trial court failed to properly follow KRS 413.241 after the jury rendered its verdict.”
Carruthers v. Edwards, 395 S.W.3d 488 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“Kentucky’s Dram Shop Act, KRS 413.241, provides, in pertinent part: (1) The General Assembly finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the serving, furnishing, or sale of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death…”
Sixty-Eight Liquors, Inc. v. Colvin, 118 S.W.3d 171 (Ky. 2003).
“*173 The following questions are before this Court: (1) whether Sixty-Eight Liquors, a licensed establishment that made an unlawful sale of alcoholic beverages to a minor, may be held liable for that minor’s death under KRS 413.241, if it is proven that his resultant…”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 413.241(l) — 1 case
Carruthers v. Edwards, 395 S.W.3d 488 (Ky. Ct. App. 2012).
“Kentucky’s Dram Shop Act, KRS 413.241, provides, in pertinent part: (1) The General Assembly finds and declares that the consumption of intoxicating beverages, rather than the serving, furnishing, or sale of such beverages, is the proximate cause of any injury, including death…”
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.