537.053. Sale of alcoholic beverage may be proximate cause of personal injuries or death — requirements — (dram shop law). — 1. Since the repeal of the Missouri Dram Shop Act in 1934 (Laws of 1933-34, extra session, page 77), it has been and continues to be the policy of this state to follow the common law of England, as declared in section 1.010, to prohibit dram shop liability and to follow the common law rule that furnishing alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries inflicted by intoxicated persons.
2. Notwithstanding subsection 1 of this section, a cause of action may be brought by or on behalf of any person who has suffered personal injury or death against any person licensed to sell intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises when it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that the seller knew or should have known that intoxicating liquor was served to a person under the age of twenty-one years or knowingly served intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person.
3. For purposes of this section, a person is "visibly intoxicated" when inebriated to such an extent that the impairment is shown by significantly uncoordinated physical action or significant physical dysfunction. A person's blood alcohol content does not constitute prima facie evidence to establish that a person is visibly intoxicated within the meaning of this section, but may be admissible as relevant evidence of the person's intoxication.
4. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to provide a right of recovery to a person who suffers injury or death proximately caused by the person's voluntary intoxication unless the person is under the age of twenty-one years. No person over the age of twenty-one years or their dependents, personal representative, and heirs may assert a claim for damages for personal injury or death against a seller of intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises arising out of the person's voluntary intoxication.
5. In an action brought pursuant to subsection 2 of this section alleging the sale of intoxicating liquor by the drink for consumption on the premises to a person under the age of twenty-one years, proof that the seller or the seller's agent or employee demanded and was shown a driver's license or official state or federal personal identification card, appearing to be genuine and showing that the minor was at least twenty-one years of age, shall be relevant in determining the relative fault of the seller or seller's agent or employee in the action.
6. No employer may discharge his or her employee for refusing service to a visibly intoxicated person.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
44
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case:
Simpson v. Kilcher, 749 S.W.2d 386 (Mo. 1988).
Simpson v. Kilcher, 749 S.W.2d 386 (Mo. 1988).
· cites it 108× “The trial court dismissed Simpson's suit because the liquor licensees had not been convicted of selling alcohol to a person obviously intoxicated or to a minor, the necessary element of such suits under section 537.053, RSMo 1986. [1] *389 Simpson concedes that he must prove the…”
Kilmer v. Hui Chan Mun, 17 S.W.3d 545 (Mo. 2000).
· cites it 56× “Family members requested a criminal charge because they wanted to bring a civil action against Stefanina's *547 under section 537.053. [4] Without a conviction or suspended imposition of sentence of Stefanina's under section 311.”
Lambing v. Southland Corp., 739 S.W.2d 717 (Mo. 1987).
· cites it 60× “The principal issue is whether Section 537.053, RSMo 1986, abrogates appellants' cause of action against these respondents and if not, whether the common law at the time of this accident recognized an action by injured persons against those who serve or sell alcohol to…”
Andres v. Alpha Kappa Lambda Fraternity, 730 S.W.2d 547 (Mo. 1987).
· cites it 26× “The Local contends, however, that the terms of recently enacted § 537.053 [9] (effective September 28, *551 1985) bar any claim which respondents would otherwise be entitled to pursue in as much as § 537.”
Elliot v. Kesler, 799 S.W.2d 97 (Mo. Ct. App. 1990).
· cites it 26× “Shortly thereafter, the Missouri legislature responded to the pronouncement of the public policy of Missouri by the court in Carver , Sampson and Nesbitt by the passage of § 537.053, RSMo 1986 (effective September 28, 1985), which expressly abrogated the holding of those cases.”
Coons v. Berry, 304 S.W.3d 215 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 27× “In the 1985 legislative session that ended in May of that year, the legislature directly responded to Sampson, Nesbitt and Carver by enacting § 537.053, RSMo Cum Supp.1985. The Hardman court referenced the enactment and found the response “very informative.”
State Ex Rel. Dos Hombres-Indep. Inc. v. Nixon, 48 S.W.3d 76 (Mo. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 11× “Dos Hombres filed a motion to dismiss the petition as it related to it, claiming that the wrongful death assertions in the petition against it conflicted with section 537.053, RSMo 1994. The statute states in part: 1.”
Blaske v. Smith & Entzeroth, Inc., 821 S.W.2d 822 (Mo. 1991).
· cites it 4× “He referred specifically to § 537.053, RSMo 1986, abrogating dram shop liability and § 188.”
Auto Owners (Mut.) Ins. Co. v. Sugar Creek Mem'l Post No. 3976, 123 S.W.3d 183 (Mo. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “In 1985, the Missouri legislature responded to the pronouncement of Missouri public policy by the judiciary in Carver, Sampson, and Nesbitt , by passing section 537.053, RSMo 1986, which expressly abrogated the holdings of those cases.”
Snodgras Ex Rel. Keown v. Martin & Bayley, Inc., 204 S.W.3d 638 (Mo. 2006).
· cites it 5× “Dram Shop Act (Act), section 537.053, RSMo Supp. 2002 1 , violates the open courts and equal protection clauses of the Missouri Constitution insofar as the Act bars a cause of action against commercial sellers of packaged alcohol who sell alcohol to a minor.”
Von Ruecker v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 775 S.W.2d 295 (Mo. Ct. App. 1989).
· cites it 11× “In his first point, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in dismissing his petition because § 537.053, RSMo 1986, is inapplicable to licensees who serve intoxicating liquor to obviously intoxicated minors.”
Gabelsberger v. J.H., 133 S.W.3d 181 (Mo. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 18× “The Harriman court further noted that the legislature had recently passed section 537.053, RSMo 1986, declaring in subsection 2 that cases such as Carver and others 1 were abrogated in favor of prior judicial interpretation finding the consumption of alcoholic beverages, rather…”
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.053(2) — 2 cases
— Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.053(3) — 2 cases
Simpson v. Kilcher, 749 S.W.2d 386 (Mo. 1988).
“The trial court dismissed Simpson's suit because the liquor licensees had not been convicted of selling alcohol to a person obviously intoxicated or to a minor, the necessary element of such suits under section 537.053, RSMo 1986. [1] *389 Simpson concedes that he must prove the…”
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.