Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 436 / Act 58 of 1998
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801 (2026)

Granting or renewing license; selling, furnishing, or giving alcoholic liquor to minor or to person visibly intoxicated; right of action for damage or personal injury; actual damages; institution of action; notice; survival of action; general reputation as evidence of relation; separate actions by parents; commencement of action against retail licensee; indemnification; defenses available to licensee; rebuttable presumption; prohibited causes of action; section as exclusive remedy for money damages against licensee; civil action subject to revised judicature act.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

MICHIGAN LIQUOR CONTROL CODE OF 1998


Act 58 of 1998


436.1801 Granting or renewing license; selling, furnishing, or giving alcoholic liquor to minor or to person visibly intoxicated; right of action for damage or personal injury; actual damages; institution of action; notice; survival of action; general reputation as evidence of relation; separate actions by parents; commencement of action against retail licensee; indemnification; defenses available to licensee; rebuttable presumption; prohibited causes of action; section as exclusive remedy for money damages against licensee; civil action subject to revised judicature act.

Sec. 801.

    (1) A retail licensee shall not directly, individually, or by a clerk, agent, or servant sell, furnish, or give alcoholic liquor to a minor except as otherwise provided in this act. A retail licensee shall not directly or indirectly, individually or by a clerk, agent, or servant sell, furnish, or give alcoholic liquor to an individual who is visibly intoxicated.

    (2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an individual who suffers damage or who is personally injured by a minor or visibly intoxicated person by reason of the unlawful selling, giving, or furnishing of alcoholic liquor to the minor or visibly intoxicated person, if the unlawful sale is proven to be a proximate cause of the damage, injury, or death, or the spouse, child, parent, or guardian of that individual, has a right of action in his or her name against the person who by selling, giving, or furnishing the alcoholic liquor has caused or contributed to the intoxication of the person or who has caused or contributed to the damage, injury, or death. In an action under this section, the plaintiff has the right to recover actual damages in a sum of not less than $50.00 in each case in which the court or jury determines that intoxication was a proximate cause of the damage, injury, or death.

    (3) An action under this section must be instituted within 2 years after the injury or death. A plaintiff seeking damages under this section shall give written notice to all defendants within 120 days after entering an attorney-client relationship for the purpose of pursuing a claim under this section. Failure to give written notice within the time specified is grounds for dismissal of a claim as to any defendants that did not receive that notice unless sufficient information for determining that a retail licensee might be liable under this section was not known and could not reasonably have been known within the 120 days. In the event of the death of either party, the right of action under this section survives to or against his or her personal representative. In each action by a husband, wife, child, or parent, the general reputation of the relation of husband and wife or parent and child is prima facie evidence of the relation, and the amount recovered by either the husband, wife, parent, or child is his or her sole and separate property. The damages, together with the costs of the action, must be recovered in an action under this section. If the parents of the individual who suffered damage or who was personally injured are entitled to damages under this section, the father and mother may sue separately, but recovery by 1 is a bar to action by the other.

    (4) An action under this section against a retail licensee must not be commenced unless the minor or the alleged intoxicated person is a named defendant in the action and is retained in the action until the litigation is concluded by trial or settlement.

    (5) Any licensee subject to subsection (2) regarding the unlawful selling, furnishing, or giving of alcoholic liquor to a visibly intoxicated person has the right to full indemnification from the alleged visibly intoxicated person for all damages awarded against the licensee.

    (6) All defenses of the alleged visibly intoxicated person or the minor are available to the licensee. In an action alleging the unlawful sale of alcoholic liquor to a minor, proof that the defendant retail licensee or the defendant's agent or employee demanded and was shown a Michigan driver license or official state personal identification card, appearing to be genuine and showing that the minor was at least 21 years of age, is a defense to the action.

    (7) There is a rebuttable presumption that a retail licensee, other than the retail licensee who last sold, gave, or furnished alcoholic liquor to the minor or the visibly intoxicated person, has not committed any act giving rise to a cause of action under subsection (2).

    (8) The alleged visibly intoxicated person does not have a cause of action under this section and a person does not have a cause of action under this section for the loss of financial support, services, gifts, parental training, guidance, love, society, or companionship of the alleged visibly intoxicated person.

    (9) This section provides the exclusive remedy for money damages against a licensee arising out of the selling, giving, or furnishing of alcoholic liquor to a minor or intoxicated person.

    (10) Except as otherwise provided for under this section and section 815, a civil action under subsection (2) against a retail licensee is subject to the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.101 to 600.9947.

    

    

History: 1998, Act 58, Imd. Eff. Apr. 14, 1998 ;-- Am. 2008, Act 11, Imd. Eff. Feb. 29, 2008 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 131, Imd. Eff. Nov. 21, 2019

Compiler's Notes:

    Former sections 22 to 22h of Act 8 of 1933 (Ex. Sess.), being MCL 436.22 to 436.22h, and which were repealed by Act 58 of 1998, Eff. Apr. 14, 1998, were formerly known and cited as the “Dram Shop Act.”

PopularName Notes:

Dram Shop Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1999–2024 · leading case: Reed v. Breton, 718 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Reed v. Breton, 718 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 52× “Hence, the majority creates a new "clear and convincing evidence" standard out of thin air in complete disregard of the text of MCL 436.1801 and of recognized rules of statutory interpretation.”
Auto-Owners Ins. v. Seils, 310 Mich. App. 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 20× “This Court analyzed the predecessor of MCL 436.1801, MCL 436.22, and noted that the statute required the sale of alcohol to be a proximate cause of the resulting injury, but did “not limit liability only to negligently inflicted injuries.”
Mann v. Shusteric Enter., Inc, 683 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. 2004). · cites it 18× “[7] Moreover, because the act also provides that "[t]he alleged visibly intoxicated person shall not have a cause of action pursuant to this section .”
Cooper v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 751 N.W.2d 443 (Mich. 2008). · cites it 4× “The dramshop act, MCL 436.1801 et seq., states that it provides "the exclusive remedy for money damages against a licensee arising out of the selling, giving, or furnishing of alcoholic liquor.”
Hashem v. Les Stanford Oldsmobile, Inc, 697 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 5× “In seeking a directed verdict, counsel for Clutch Cargo’s argued that the lack of any evidence of a “direct sale” of alcohol to Mohamad by the club precluded any liability on its part under the dramshop act, MCL 436.1801. The trial court agreed and, after concluding that the…”
Jawad a Shah Md Pc v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co, 920 N.W.2d 148 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018). “That statute was repealed by 1998 PA 58 and replaced by MCL 436.1801, as enacted by 1998 PA 58 . 4 Justice Boyle concurred with Justice Brickley's opinion in full.”
Paige v. City of Sterling Heights, 720 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “*227 16 See MCL 436.1801(3); MSA 18.1175(801)(3), MCL 600.”
F.F.P. Operating Partners, L.P. v. Duenez, 237 S.W.3d 680 (Tex. 2007). “") (emphasis added); Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801 (2001) ( ”[A]n individual who suffers damage or who is personally injured by a minor or visibly intoxicated person by reason of the unlawful selling, giving, or furnishing of alcoholic liquor to the minor or visibly intoxicated…”
Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000). “See MCL 436.1801(3); MSA 18.1175(801)(3), MCL 600.”
Verna's Tavern Inc. v. Heite, 624 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 4× “§ 436.1801(3); MSA 18.1175(801)(3). [2] 1998 PA 58 , § 1301 repealed this provision; the provision was reenacted by 1998 PA 58 as M.”
Dep't of Agric. v. Appletree Mktg., LLC, 779 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. 2010). “While the parties dispute which version of the RJA applies, for present purposes, the current version is substantially similar to the former version given that, in both, the statutory remedy provided is “in addition to” other remedies at law.”
Tull v. Wtf, Inc, 706 N.W.2d 439 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “1 Plaintiff seeks relief under the dramshop act, MCL 436.1801, which provides, in pertinent part: (3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an individual who suffers damage or who is personally injured by a minor or visibly intoxicated person by reason of the unlawful…”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(1) — 5 cases
Est. of Diana E Pozderca v. Maple Lane Golf Club (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Kathy Hahn v. Gary Vanduker (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Est. of Jared P Baragwanath v. Amc Sault Ste Marie Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Devry Graham v. Shawn Altadonna (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Devry Graham v. Shawn Altadonna (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(10) — 10 cases
Mann v. Shusteric Enter., Inc, 683 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. 2004). “[7] Moreover, because the act also provides that "[t]he alleged visibly intoxicated person shall not have a cause of action pursuant to this section .”
Cooper v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 751 N.W.2d 443 (Mich. 2008). “The dramshop act, MCL 436.1801 et seq., states that it provides "the exclusive remedy for money damages against a licensee arising out of the selling, giving, or furnishing of alcoholic liquor.”
Auto-Owners Ins. v. Seils, 310 Mich. App. 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “This Court analyzed the predecessor of MCL 436.1801, MCL 436.22, and noted that the statute required the sale of alcohol to be a proximate cause of the resulting injury, but did “not limit liability only to negligently inflicted injuries.”
Dep't of Agric. v. Appletree Mktg., LLC, 779 N.W.2d 237 (Mich. 2010). “While the parties dispute which version of the RJA applies, for present purposes, the current version is substantially similar to the former version given that, in both, the statutory remedy provided is “in addition to” other remedies at law.”
Hashem v. Les Stanford Oldsmobile, Inc, 697 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “In seeking a directed verdict, counsel for Clutch Cargo’s argued that the lack of any evidence of a “direct sale” of alcohol to Mohamad by the club precluded any liability on its part under the dramshop act, MCL 436.1801. The trial court agreed and, after concluding that the…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(2) — 16 cases
Auto-Owners Ins. v. Seils, 310 Mich. App. 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “This Court analyzed the predecessor of MCL 436.1801, MCL 436.22, and noted that the statute required the sale of alcohol to be a proximate cause of the resulting injury, but did “not limit liability only to negligently inflicted injuries.”
Hashem v. Les Stanford Oldsmobile, Inc, 697 N.W.2d 558 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “In seeking a directed verdict, counsel for Clutch Cargo’s argued that the lack of any evidence of a “direct sale” of alcohol to Mohamad by the club precluded any liability on its part under the dramshop act, MCL 436.1801. The trial court agreed and, after concluding that the…”
Shorecrest Lanes & Lounge, Inc v. Liquor Control Comm'n, 652 N.W.2d 493 (Mich. Ct. App. 2002).
Reed v. Breton, 691 N.W.2d 779 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Est. of Skyler Seils v. Fraternal Order of Police Assocs. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(3) — 21 cases
Reed v. Breton, 718 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. 2006). “Hence, the majority creates a new "clear and convincing evidence" standard out of thin air in complete disregard of the text of MCL 436.1801 and of recognized rules of statutory interpretation.”
Auto-Owners Ins. v. Seils, 310 Mich. App. 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “This Court analyzed the predecessor of MCL 436.1801, MCL 436.22, and noted that the statute required the sale of alcohol to be a proximate cause of the resulting injury, but did “not limit liability only to negligently inflicted injuries.”
Mann v. Shusteric Enter., Inc, 683 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. 2004). “[7] Moreover, because the act also provides that "[t]he alleged visibly intoxicated person shall not have a cause of action pursuant to this section .”
Paige v. City of Sterling Heights, 720 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2006). “*227 16 See MCL 436.1801(3); MSA 18.1175(801)(3), MCL 600.”
Robinson v. City of Detroit, 613 N.W.2d 307 (Mich. 2000). “See MCL 436.1801(3); MSA 18.1175(801)(3), MCL 600.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(4) — 8 cases
Auto-Owners Ins. v. Seils, 310 Mich. App. 132 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “This Court analyzed the predecessor of MCL 436.1801, MCL 436.22, and noted that the statute required the sale of alcohol to be a proximate cause of the resulting injury, but did “not limit liability only to negligently inflicted injuries.”
Helder v. Sruba, 611 N.W.2d 309 (Mich. 2000).
Langrill v. Stingers Lounge, 683 N.W.2d 225 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
David Sanders v. Shawn Spohn (Mich. 2020).
David Sanders v. Shawn Spohn (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(6) — 2 cases
Verna's Tavern Inc. v. Heite, 624 N.W.2d 738 (Mich. Ct. App. 2001). “§ 436.1801(3); MSA 18.1175(801)(3). [2] 1998 PA 58 , § 1301 repealed this provision; the provision was reenacted by 1998 PA 58 as M.”
Micon Wayside Bar & Grille, Inc. v. Delia (In Re Delia), 353 B.R. 532 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2006).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(7) — 3 cases
Est. of Diana E Pozderca v. Maple Lane Golf Club (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Devry Graham v. Shawn Altadonna (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
Devry Graham v. Shawn Altadonna (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(8) — 6 cases
Reed v. Breton, 718 N.W.2d 770 (Mich. 2006). “Hence, the majority creates a new "clear and convincing evidence" standard out of thin air in complete disregard of the text of MCL 436.1801 and of recognized rules of statutory interpretation.”
Reed v. Breton, 691 N.W.2d 779 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
Gadigian v. City of Taylor, 774 N.W.2d 352 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
Stephen Ancona v. Andrew C Gillespie (Mich. 2010).
Jeffrey S Mindykowski v. Cody M Olsen (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(9) — 4 cases
Mann v. Shusteric Enter., Inc, 683 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. 2004). “[7] Moreover, because the act also provides that "[t]he alleged visibly intoxicated person shall not have a cause of action pursuant to this section .”
Susan Jaber v. Jacob E Randall (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
Est. of Jared P Baragwanath v. Amc Sault Ste Marie Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
20241206_C363572_41_363572.Opn.Pdf (Mich. Ct. App. 2024).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(9)(10) — 1 case
Mann v. Shusteric Enter., Inc, 683 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. 2004). “[7] Moreover, because the act also provides that "[t]he alleged visibly intoxicated person shall not have a cause of action pursuant to this section .”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 436.1801(9X10) — 1 case
Mann v. Shusteric Enter., Inc, 683 N.W.2d 573 (Mich. 2004). “[7] Moreover, because the act also provides that "[t]he alleged visibly intoxicated person shall not have a cause of action pursuant to this section .”
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.