Notwithstanding division (A) of section 2307.60 of the Revised Code and except as otherwise provided in this section, no person, and no executor or administrator of the person, who suffers personal injury, death, or property damage as a result of the actions of an intoxicated person has a cause of action against any liquor permit holder or an employee of a liquor permit holder who sold beer or intoxicating liquor to the intoxicated person unless the personal injury, death, or property damage occurred on the permit holder's premises or in a parking lot under the control of the permit holder and was proximately caused by the negligence of the permit holder or an employee of the permit holder. A person has a cause of action against a permit holder or an employee of a permit holder for personal injury, death, or property damage caused by the negligent actions of an intoxicated person occurring off the premises or away from a parking lot under the permit holder's control only when both of the following can be shown by a preponderance of the evidence:
(A) The permit holder or an employee of the permit holder knowingly sold an intoxicating beverage to at least one of the following:
(1) A noticeably intoxicated person in violation of division (B) of section 4301.22 of the Revised Code;
(2) A person in violation of section 4301.69 of the Revised Code.
(B) The person's intoxication proximately caused the personal injury, death, or property damage.
Notwithstanding sections 4399.02 and 4399.05 of the Revised Code, no person, and no executor or administrator of the person, who suffers personal injury, death, or property damage as a result of the actions of an intoxicated person has a cause of action against the owner of a building or premises who rents or leases the building or premises to a liquor permit holder against whom a cause of action may be brought under this section, except when the owner and the permit holder are the same person.
Jacobson v. Kaforey (Slip Opinion), 2016-Ohio-8434, 75 N.E.3d 203. · cites it 11ד” {¶ 43} In 1986, the General Assembly codified the Dram Shop Act in R.C. 4399.18, which provided that “[n]otwithstanding section 2307.”
Lesnau v. Andate Enter., Inc., 756 N.E.2d 97 (Ohio 2001). · cites it 27דThe trial court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a cause of action under R.C. 4399.18. The court concluded that Lesnau failed to plead or prove that the liquor permit holder knowingly sold the alcohol to an…”
Studer v. Vets. of Foreign Wars Post 3767, 925 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2009). · cites it 24ד*699 {¶ 18} At the time of appellant’s loss, R.C. 4399.18 provided: {¶ 19} “A person has a cause of action against a liquor permit holder * * * for injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by the negligent actions * * * of an intoxicated person occurring off the…”
Cummins v. Rubio, 622 N.E.2d 700 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 1993). · cites it 16דThey also found appellees negligent on the grounds that they did not provide sufficient security, but in the opinion of the majority of the panel the appellees could not be held liable because R.C. 4399.18 provides the sole exclusive remedy for appellant.”
Colburn v. Maynard, 675 N.E.2d 1333 (Ohio Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1996). · cites it 15דOn November 4, 1992, appellant filed a complaint against Maynard and Tollgate Inn owner, appellee Paul Compher, alleging an intentional tort against Maynard and a negligence action against Compher based on alleged violations of R.C. 4399.18 and 4301.22. On July 6, 1994, the…”
Hoeflinger v. AM Mart, L.L.C., 2017-Ohio-7530, 96 N.E.3d 1247. · cites it 13דIntroduction {¶ 1} This case presents multiple negligence and wrongful death claims for alleged violations of Ohio's Dramshop Act, R.C. 4399.18 and 4301.69. The decedent, Brian N.”
McKinley v. Chris' Band Box, 794 N.E.2d 136 (Ohio Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2003). · cites it 10ד{¶ 1} Plaintiff, Blake McKinley, appeals from a summary judgment the trial court granted in favor of defendant, Chris’ Band Box, on McKinley’s claim for relief pursuant to R.C. 4399.18, Ohio’s Dram Shop Act. {¶ 2} Chris’ Band Box is a tavern that serves alcoholic beverages…”
Gressman v. McClain, 533 N.E.2d 732 (Ohio 1988). · cites it 4דIn 1986, after this cause of action arose, the General Assembly clearly set forth the preexisting public policy on this issue in R.C. 4399.18. The statute provides in pertinent part as follows: “* * * A person has a cause of action against a permit holder or his employee for…”
Klever v. Canton Sachsenheim, Inc., 86 Ohio St. 3d 419 (Ohio 1999). · cites it 6דThe Ohio Dramshop Act, R.C. 4399.18, embodies that general, common-law rule that a person (or his representative) may not maintain a cause of action against a liquor permit holder for injury resulting from the acts of an intoxicated person.”
Krichner v. Shooters on the Water, Inc., 856 N.E.2d 1026 (Ohio Ct. App. 8th Dist. 2006). · cites it 5ד2d 601 (holding that an adult bar patron does not have a cause of action under R.C. 4399.18 for his or her own injuries that proximately resulted from his or her own intoxication because R.”
Stillwell v. Johnson, 602 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1991). · cites it 7דIn 1986, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 4399.18 in which it codified the liability of liquor-permit holders for injuries caused by actions of intoxicated persons.”
Perkins v. 122 E. 6th St., L.L.C., 2017-Ohio-5592, 94 N.E.3d 207. · cites it 7ד{¶ 3} Perkins, as representative of Readnour's estate, filed suit against Igby's, a liquor permit holder located in downtown Cincinnati, alleging that on November 10 and 11, 2012, Igby's employees had knowingly sold alcohol to a noticeably intoxicated Martin, in violation of…”
Lesnau v. Andate Enter., Inc., 756 N.E.2d 97 (Ohio 2001). “The trial court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a cause of action under R.C. 4399.18. The court concluded that Lesnau failed to plead or prove that the liquor permit holder knowingly sold the alcohol to an…”
Studer v. Vets. of Foreign Wars Post 3767, 925 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2009). “*699 {¶ 18} At the time of appellant’s loss, R.C. 4399.18 provided: {¶ 19} “A person has a cause of action against a liquor permit holder * * * for injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by the negligent actions * * * of an intoxicated person occurring off the…”
Lesnau v. Andate Enter., Inc., 756 N.E.2d 97 (Ohio 2001). “The trial court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a cause of action under R.C. 4399.18. The court concluded that Lesnau failed to plead or prove that the liquor permit holder knowingly sold the alcohol to an…”
Stillwell v. Johnson, 602 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1991). “In 1986, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 4399.18 in which it codified the liability of liquor-permit holders for injuries caused by actions of intoxicated persons.”
Studer v. Vets. of Foreign Wars Post 3767, 925 N.E.2d 629 (Ohio Ct. App. 11th Dist. 2009). “*699 {¶ 18} At the time of appellant’s loss, R.C. 4399.18 provided: {¶ 19} “A person has a cause of action against a liquor permit holder * * * for injury, death, or loss to person or property caused by the negligent actions * * * of an intoxicated person occurring off the…”
Hoeflinger v. AM Mart, L.L.C., 2017-Ohio-7530, 96 N.E.3d 1247. “Introduction {¶ 1} This case presents multiple negligence and wrongful death claims for alleged violations of Ohio's Dramshop Act, R.C. 4399.18 and 4301.69. The decedent, Brian N.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4399.18(A)(3): 3 cases
Lesnau v. Andate Enter., Inc., 756 N.E.2d 97 (Ohio 2001). “The trial court awarded summary judgment to the defendants on the basis that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead a cause of action under R.C. 4399.18. The court concluded that Lesnau failed to plead or prove that the liquor permit holder knowingly sold the alcohol to an…”
Stillwell v. Johnson, 602 N.E.2d 1254 (Ohio Ct. App. 1st Dist. 1991). “In 1986, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 4399.18 in which it codified the liability of liquor-permit holders for injuries caused by actions of intoxicated persons.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 4399.18(B): 4 cases
Hoeflinger v. AM Mart, L.L.C., 2017-Ohio-7530, 96 N.E.3d 1247. “Introduction {¶ 1} This case presents multiple negligence and wrongful death claims for alleged violations of Ohio's Dramshop Act, R.C. 4399.18 and 4301.69. The decedent, Brian N.”
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.