§
Subdivision 1.Right of action.
A spouse, child, parent, guardian, employer, or other person injured in person, property, or means of support, or who incurs other pecuniary loss by an intoxicated person or by the intoxication of another person, has a right of action in the person's own name for all damages sustained against a person who caused the intoxication of that person by illegally selling alcoholic beverages. All damages recovered by a minor under this section must be paid either to the minor or to the minor's parent, guardian, or next friend as the court directs.
§
Subd. 2.Actions.
All suits for damages under this section must be by civil action in a court of this state having jurisdiction.
§
Subd. 3.Comparative negligence.
Actions under this section are governed by section 604.01.
§
Subd. 4.Subrogation claims denied.
There shall be no recovery by any insurance company against any liquor vendor under subrogation clauses of the uninsured, underinsured, collision, or other first party coverages of a motor vehicle insurance policy as a result of payments made by the company to persons who have claims that arise in whole or part under this section. The provisions of section 65B.53, subdivision 3, do not apply to actions under this section.
§
Subd. 6.Common law claims.
Nothing in this chapter precludes common law tort claims against any person 21 years old or older who knowingly provides or furnishes alcoholic beverages to a person under the age of 21 years.
Notes of Decisions
Brua v. Minnesota Jt. Underwriting Ass'n, 778 N.W.2d 294 (Minn. 2010).
· cites it 30× “An action under the Minnesota Civil Damages Act, Minn.Stat. § 340A.801 (2008), was brought against the Bend in the Road bar and its proprietors, who in turn made a claim for coverage from their insurance carrier, appellant the Minnesota Joint Underwriting Association (MJUA).”
Osborne v. Twin Town Bowl, Inc., 749 N.W.2d 367 (Minn. 2008).
· cites it 30× “'s family brought a dram shop action against a bowling alley under Minn.Stat. § 340A.801 (2006). The family alleges that the bowling alley's illegal sale of alcohol caused Riley to be intoxicated, and that this intoxication caused *369 Riley to jump to his death into the…”
Koehnen v. Dufuor, 590 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 1999).
· cites it 36× “Appellant Joseph Koehnen was injured by a guest who had consumed alcohol at respondent Rachel Paul's party after having paid a $4 charge.”
Kuiawinski v. Palm Garden Bar, 392 N.W.2d 899 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 32× “Minn.Stat. § 340A.801 (Supp.1985). The revisor erroneously omitted the right to sue for the recovery of pecuniary loss.”
K.R. v. Sanford, 588 N.W.2d 545 (Minn. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 32× “did not have standing to sue under the CDA because she illegally purchased alcohol.”
Urban Ex Rel. Urban v. Am. Legion Post 184, 695 N.W.2d 153 (Minn. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “" Minn.Stat. § 340A.801, subd. 1 (2004). Prior to the Act, there was no liability at common law for injuries caused by illegal sale of alcohol.”
Lefto v. Hoggsbreath Enter., Inc., 567 N.W.2d 746 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997).
· cites it 20× “challenges the district court's conclusion that a woman and her daughter may recover for loss due to permanent injuries sustained by the woman's fiancé under Minn.Stat. § 340A.801, subd. 1 (1996). We affirm.”
Paulson v. Lapa, Inc., 450 N.W.2d 374 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 12× “In Palm Garden Bar , we held that the following version of Minn.Stat. § 340A.801 was consistent with the intent of the 1985 Legislature.”
Henson v. Uptown Drink, LLC, 922 N.W.2d 185 (Minn. 2019).
· cites it 6× “In February 2012, Henson's family 1 sued Uptown Drink, LLC, for innkeeper negligence and violation of the Dram Shop Act, Minn. Stat. §§ 340A.801 -.802 (2018). Uptown Drink moved for summary judgment, arguing that the lawsuit was barred by the Workers' Compensation Act.”
Imlay v. City of Lake Crystal, 453 N.W.2d 326 (Minn. 1990).
· cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 340A.801 et seq. (1986). The city then brought a third-party action against Miller’s estate.”
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.